[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 9, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S510-S528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          PAYING DOWN THE DEBT

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, recent warnings from Moody's that the United 
States will have to begin addressing our debt in order to avoid 
downgrading our triple-A bond rating mean that we have to get serious 
about doing something about the latest deficit and debt projections. 
The President's new budget proposal estimates that the Federal deficit 
for fiscal year 2010 will be roughly $1.6 trillion, the largest in 
American history. It also projects that the deficit we will accumulate 
over the next decade will increase the U.S. national debt by $8.5 
trillion. By the year to 2020, our total public debt will have 
surpassed $18 trillion and will make up an astounding 77 percent of 
gross domestic product.
  We all agree that this debt poses a major threat to America's future 
prosperity, and we all agree that slashing debt should be a top 
national priority. How can we do it? There are four principal ways to 
reduce government debt: No. 1, inflate the dollar; No. 2, raise taxes; 
No. 3, cut spending; and No. 4, increase economic growth. Let me 
briefly discuss each.
  First, inflation. Inflation is tempting for governments looking to 
mitigate their debt problem, but its economic consequences are 
catastrophic. As President Ronald Reagan famously said, inflation is 
``as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as 
deadly as a hit man.'' Although America has not experienced painfully 
high consumer price inflation since the late 1970s and early 1980s, we 
all remember what it took to kill that inflation: soaring interest 
rates and a deep recession, the worst since the Second World War. As 
former Wall Street Journal editor George Melloan notes in his new book, 
``The Great Money Binge,'' inflation is ``a tax no one can escape.'' 
And it is one that disproportionately hurts lower and middle-income 
Americans and older Americans with savings.
  Taxes, a second option for trimming our debt burden, would have to be 
raised significantly. But, of course, raising taxes is the last thing 
we should do amid a tentative economic recovery. For evidence of what 
taxes do to a shaky economy, look at what happened during Japan's lost 
decade. In the early 1990s, the Japanese experienced a stock market 
crash, a financial crisis, and a recession. The government took several 
steps to address the downturn. Among other things, it reduced income 
taxes. Then, just as the Japanese economy was recovering--thanks partly 
to these tax cuts--the government raised taxes. The result: Japan fell 
back into recession. I hope the administration keeps this history in 
mind before raising taxes at the end of the year, as President Obama 
has pledged to do.
  A third way to lower the national debt would be to cut Federal 
spending, which is always painful for Congress but particularly in a 
situation such as this one is absolutely necessary. The administration 
has been touting a temporary spending freeze that would begin next 
year, but this freeze would apply only to discretionary nondefense 
spending which comprises a small fraction of the total budget, about 13 
percent. Moreover, this freeze doesn't go into effect until the next 
fiscal year, and it would not apply to the new stimulus bill the Senate 
will soon take up. There is a lot of waste in government, and we have 
to look even harder for additional ways to save and be more responsible 
with Americans' money. Spending less is the only real way to work off 
the debt in the long term.
  The fourth way to get out of this debt is through economic growth, 
but

[[Page S511]]

this debt explosion could have a significantly negative impact on our 
ability to grow by leading to higher interest rates and squelching 
investment. Economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff lay hard 
numbers to this claim in a new paper entitled ``Growth in a Time of 
Debt.'' They write:

       When gross external debt reaches 60 percent of GDP, annual 
     growth declines by about 2 percent; for levels of external 
     debt in excess of 90 percent of GDP, growth rates are roughly 
     cut in half.

  Remember, the President's budget projects debt to reach 77 percent of 
GDP by 2020. So even though growth could eventually enable us to manage 
and, over time, reduce and perhaps even eliminate our debt, there is a 
point at which the amount of debt itself inhibits growth, our ability 
to grow, and obviously we have to tackle the problem of increasing 
debt, increasing spending, even if we are to hope to grow our way out 
of the debt problem we have.
  Over the long term then, the only way to permanently lower our debt 
is to hold Federal spending in check and promote strong economic growth 
such as through lower taxes. This has proven to work time and time 
again.
  Whether we look to the 1920s, the 1960s, or the 1980s, history shows 
us that reducing marginal income tax rates is a highly effective way to 
stimulate an economic expansion. To that end, I hope the administration 
decides to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.
  I also hope it reconsiders its plan to raise taxes on U.S. 
multinational corporations. The administration argues that many U.S. 
corporations are keeping their profits overseas. But as the Cato 
Institute economist Chris Edwards pointed out, the reason that U.S. 
multinationals are moving their profits abroad is that America has the 
second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Only Japan 
has a higher rate.
  Lowering corporate income taxes would spur investment and job 
creation at home and make us more competitive abroad. Keeping marginal 
tax rates where they are would enable small business entrepreneurs to 
begin hiring and expanding. That is the key to recovery and to debt 
reduction.
  So, again, strong growth and spending discipline is the only 
sustainable solution to the debt problem. I urge my colleagues to keep 
this in mind as we continue to debate this matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Mr. Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board. 
Mr. Craig Becker is the first person--I repeat, the first person--
nominated for a term on the National Labor Relations Board who comes 
directly from a labor organization.
  Mr. Becker is an officer and associate general counsel of two of our 
Nation's largest unions, the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. These unions clearly 
have a substantial interest in the most important decisions presently 
pending before the Board.
  Now, it is one thing to come from private law practice representing 
employers or unions as clients under the circumstances. It is quite 
another to come to the Board directly from being an officer and 
associate general counsel of a labor organization with, as mentioned, 
substantial interests in multiple matters pending or that will be 
pending before the Board.
  Last week's hearing was clearly necessary, as it revealed that while 
Mr. Becker will recuse himself for a period of 2 years, and only for 2 
years, from those instances when his former employers, the 
international unions, are a party in a Board proceeding, he did not 
commit to recuse himself from cases raising issues in which the 
internationals are involved or impacted, and he did not commit to 
recuse himself from cases involving the locals of those two 
international unions.
  Parties before the Board, whether union or employer, have a right to 
a fair and impartial tribunal. The confirmation of an officer and 
associate general counsel of two of our Nation's largest unions for a 
term on the National Labor Relations Board will make the appearance of 
justice and many of the decisions in which he participates impossible 
to achieve.
  Further, to the extent he interprets the act to adopt the policy 
imperatives of the SEIU or the AFL-CIO and not those expressed by 
Congress in the act, he will further undermine the Board and sow 
cynicism in the labor/management community as well as amongst workers 
whose rights to engage in protected concerted activity or refrain from 
doing so are protected under the act.
  Mr. Becker's writings suggest that he believes the Board can 
implement provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act into labor law 
through decisions of the Board. This view suggesting the Board can do 
what Congress has not authorized should raise concerns with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Let me read a quote from Mr. Becker's colleague, Mr. Stewart Acuff, 
the AFL-CIO's director of organizing from a February 3, 2010, posting 
on the Huffington Post. This is just last week.

       We are very close to the 60 votes we need. If we are not 
     able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with 
     President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees 
     to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules 
     governing forming a union through administrative action to 
     once again allow workers in America access to one of the most 
     basic freedoms in a democracy.

  This is clear. This is clear. Mr. Becker's colleague, Mr. Acuff, 
clearly indicates what Mr. Becker's agenda would be, which would be to 
violate what is absolutely only a prerogative of the Congress of the 
United States. This type of bias is why the most respected business 
groups in America are opposing Mr. Becker's nomination. A statement 
opposing Mr. Becker's nomination from the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the Nation's largest industrial trade association, 
states:

       The NAM firmly believes that NLRB members charged with 
     administering our nation's labors laws should protect the 
     principles of fairness and balance that characterize our 
     labor law system. Employees should have the right to 
     information from both employers and union officials and the 
     time to review that information in order to better make 
     important decisions that impact their jobs and families.
       Unfortunately, Mr. Becker's interpretation of our labor 
     laws does not reflect these principles and casts serious 
     doubt on his ability to administer our nation's laws in an 
     unbiased manner. We are particularly concerned with Mr. 
     Becker's writings in academic journals that argue that the 
     NLRB should limit the ability of employers to communicate 
     with their employees during union organizing campaigns. 
     Specifically, Mr. Becker has claimed in a 1993 Minnesota Law 
     Review article that ``the core defect in union election law . 
     . . is the employer's status as a party to labor 
     representation proceedings.''
       Mr. Becker has asserted views that the NLRB should rewrite 
     union election rules in favor of union organizers. Such 
     policy decisions should only be determined by Congress. The 
     NAM is particularly concerned that if confirmed, Mr. Becker 
     would seek to advance aspects of the jobs-killing Employee 
     Free Choice Act through actions of the NLRB.

  From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that has only opposed three 
nominees in the last 30 years, I quote from the U.S. Chamber's 
statement:

       This is only the third time in more than 30 years that the 
     Chamber has opposed a nominee to the Board, most recently the 
     1993 nomination of William B. Gould. Mr. Becker has written 
     prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law 
     he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he 
     be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are 
     well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of 
     established precedent and the delicate balance in current 
     labor law. These positions have raised significant concerns 
     in the employer community. Among those concerns are the 
     extent to which Mr. Becker would restrictively interpret 
     employers' free speech rights and the extent to which he 
     would seek to expand the use of intermittent strikes and 
     other forms of work stoppages that disrupt the right of 
     employers to maintain operations during labor disputes.

  There may be no one ever nominated to the NLRB more opposed by the 
business community in the entire history of the NLRB. Are we to believe 
that the President could not find a single person in America who would 
not elicit this kind of response due to their bias? Last week, over 500 
employers signed a letter opposing Mr. Becker's nomination; 23 major 
business associations oppose Mr. Becker's nomination.
  Mr. Becker's views speak for themselves. But his supporters on the 
left have explained in full view why they are attempting to seat Mr. 
Becker. From the authors in the left-leaning publication, The Nation, 
``Obama's Pro-Union Nominations to the Labor

[[Page S512]]

Relations Board Stalled,'' January 20, 2010:

       The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than 
     EFCA, may be what really determine the extent of labor's 
     gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his 
     nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much 
     of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be 
     realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB.
       If there was any doubt about the euphoria on the left, look 
     no further than what Wade Rathke, the chief organizer of 
     Community Organizations International, formally Acorn 
     International, founder and chief organizer of Acorn, and 
     founder and chief organizer of Local 100, Service Employees 
     International Union, recently wrote:
       For my money Craig [Becker's] signal contribution has been 
     his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies which 
     have allowed the . . . effective organization of informal 
     workers--home health and home day care--has been the great, 
     exceptional success story within the American labor movement 
     for our generation, leading us to the [forced dues] of 
     perhaps a half-million such workers in unions such as SEIU, 
     AFSCME, CWA, and the AFT.
       Becker is ``the key lawyer from the beginning in the early 
     1980s who was able to piece together the arguments and 
     representation that allowed those of us involved in trying to 
     organize home health care workers in Illinois, Massachusetts, 
     and elsewhere. . . . [Becker's] role was often behind the 
     scenes devising the strategy with the organizer and lawyers, 
     writing the briefs for others to file, and putting all of the 
     pieces together, but he was the go-to-guy on all of this.''

  Rathke concludes:

       I can remember Keith Kelleher negotiating the subsidy for 
     the SEIU Local 880 in Chicago and always making sure there 
     was the money for the organizers, but that SEIU was also 
     willing to allow access to Craig. . . .

  I just received this, from Alison Reardon of the Service Employees 
International Union, who came out with an e-mail today that reads:

       Senator, your attendance is crucial to appointing Craig 
     Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Please attend 
     Thursday's HELP [executive] Session to report out President 
     Obama's nomination of Craig Becker for Senate confirmation. 
     This is the highest priority for organized labor, and 
     Majority Leader Reid will file Cloture on Friday 2/5, and has 
     assured us [the] Senate will vote to end debate at 5 p.m. 
     Monday 2/8.

  So when this President was elected, he said he would govern from the 
center. If Craig Becker's nomination is approved, we will see the 
undermining of a longstanding practice in labor law that should be the 
prerogative of the United States Congress.
  If the Congress of the United States, in its wisdom, or ignorance, 
decides to pass EFCA, then that is an act of Congress. It should not 
happen. Card check should not happen because of an unelected 
bureaucracy, and the National Labor Relations Board is the one to do 
it. Mr. Becker would have that, obviously my conclusion, on his agenda.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the cloture motion on Mr. Becker's 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you take a look at the history of this 
great Nation, at least in my lifetime, you cannot miss what happened to 
America immediately after World War II. Veterans came back from that 
war, thousands of them, and they were greeted with the GI bill, which 
opened the door for them to buy homes, start businesses, start an 
education, and find good jobs.
  It may have been one of the most amazing, progressive, positive 
things we have ever done in our Nation's history: to take a war effort 
and bring it home to create an economic effort in America. Businesses 
were springing up in every direction. Workers were finding jobs and 
building homes. It was a wonderful time in our Nation's history.
  Parallel to that GI bill and economic development was the rise of 
unionism in America. More and more workers were able to go into their 
workplace and bargain collectively for the basics that people need: 
safety in the workplace, a living wage. So if you work 40 hours a week, 
you can make enough money to take care of yourself and raise a 
family, retirement benefits, health care benefits. These all came about 
at that same period of time after World War II. The rise of the 
American economy, with the returning veterans, and the rise in the 
number of people who were belonging to labor unions, in parallel, 
brought the middle class into reality in America.

  It was a positive force across our Nation. I know a little bit about 
it with my own personal family experience. My mother, my father, my two 
brothers, and I worked for a railroad in east St. Louis, IL. Dad was a 
labor organizer. He was not a high-ranking official, but he was a proud 
member of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks; mom the same. I worked 
various times in summer jobs at that same railroad. I knew I was going 
to get not a lavish salary but a decent salary for my work and have 
good conditions because that union had sat down and bargained so I 
would be recognized as an employee and protected in terms of the work I 
did. It made sure I was fairly paid.
  The same thing was true of many other families, union families, all 
across America. My mom and dad made it to the 8th grade. They sent 
their boys on to high school and to college and I managed to finish law 
school. It was the American dream, and American unions played a big 
role in realizing that dream.
  Now what has happened? Fewer and fewer Americans belong to labor 
unions. Fewer and fewer Americans are able to bargain collectively for 
decent wages and working conditions and the basic benefits we would 
expect. What did we see happening across America as a result of that 
trend? A growing disparity in terms of the wages earned by working 
people and the amount of money being paid to those who were the 
officers of corporations. That disparity has reached shocking, if not 
disgraceful, levels, where people who are at the highest rungs of 
corporate America are drawing salaries and bonuses dramatically higher 
than the people who work for them, who actually are productive and 
doing a good day's work.
  Many of us believe there is an imbalance here. It is an imbalance 
that has been created deliberately over the years. As business 
interests have had more power in Washington, they have made it 
increasingly difficult for workers to exercise their rights in their 
workplaces to organize and speak for themselves. The agency that is 
supposed to be the referee in this battle is the National Labor 
Relations Board. They look for unfair practices by either the workers 
attempting to organize or the business which is being organized. They 
basically stand by a principle which we all respect; that is, if a 
majority of the workers want to bargain collectively, they should have 
the right to do that, to organize in a union, if they wish it.
  But we know what happens. When organizers come to many businesses--
not all of them but many of them--and try to speak to the employees and 
tell them: Here is what we can offer for you if you will join our 
union, if you will join with your other coworkers in bargaining 
together, many times they are not only shunned, they are sent away. If 
they are fortunate enough to come up with a majority of workers who 
want to move toward unionizing, they find themselves facing legal 
battles, one after the other, going on for literally years, until you 
literally wear out the people who are trying to organize that plant.
  Complicit in that many times has been the National Labor Relations 
Board. Without effective and forceful enforcement of the laws that 
exist, without a sense of urgency in decisionmaking, this agency has 
allowed so many workers in America to fall by the wayside and not have 
a chance to stand for themselves. Occasionally, it reaches outrageous 
levels. We saw that in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, a person who was in 
a management position, incidentally, at a tire manufacturer down in 
Alabama. She was being discriminated against in the workplace. The laws 
could not protect her--at least they did not protect her--and she took 
her case to court. The Supreme Court of the United States threw her 
case out, even though she clearly had been discriminated against. We 
had to change the law in America because discrimination does take place 
in the workplace and because we say in this country people should be 
treated fairly.
  Now the unions come to us and say: We want to change the way we 
organize the workplace. They put together the Employee Free Choice Act. 
That is their term for the legislation that has been offered. It offers 
a new alternative to gauging whether a majority truly wants to organize 
a workplace. That bill has been considered in the other

[[Page S513]]

body. It has not been called in this body, and it is unlikely it will 
ever be called or passed in its original form. But many of us realize 
it is only fair to make some changes in the way these workplaces are 
organized, so if a majority of workers truly do want to organize, they 
have that right, they are not harassed and intimidated, threatened and 
fired because they are exercising their right under the law to consider 
belonging to a union or voting in favor of belonging to a union.
  Part of this whole discussion relates to the National Labor Relations 
Board. Before the Senate today is the nomination of Craig Becker from 
the State of Illinois to be a member of the National Labor Relations 
Board. You have just heard Senator McCain come and talk about Mr. 
Becker's activities. Senator McCain is my friend. He and I see America 
and perhaps the world in slightly different perspectives from time to 
time, and we certainly do in this case.
  The Senator from Arizona was critical of Mr. Becker, saying, well, he 
was an active organizer for the Service Employees International Union. 
That is a fact. The fact is, he worked for them in an effort to try to 
organize workplaces, and in many respects he was successful. That was 
his job. It was nothing illegal. It was an honorable, legal effort on 
his part to give voice to employees who otherwise did not have one. 
Some of the service employee unions, incidentally, represent people 
with very modest jobs, people who may be doing custodial work or basic 
maintenance work or who are overlooked in many organizing efforts. So 
Mr. Becker was fighting for them. He was fighting to give folks who 
otherwise would not have a chance at least a voice, if not a fighting 
chance, to be treated with some dignity in the workplace.
  Right now, we know what the facts are when it comes to the National 
Labor Relations Board. If you are in the process of organizing a 
workplace, and there is a violation of the law, the National Labor 
Relations Board will take 2 years before they make a decision on a 
violation of the labor laws--2 years. Well, things change in 2 years, 
and the owners of businesses know that. So making a violation and 
waiting 2 years buys them the time to try to change the sentiment in 
the workplace. It takes 1 year from actually having an organizing 
petition that is signed before the National Labor Relations Board makes 
its decision.
  Craig Becker knows that. He comes before us because we believe and 
the President believes he would be a good person on the National Labor 
Relations Board. It is hard to look at his background and say he is not 
qualified. He clearly is qualified.
  We know the National Labor Relations Board administers the primary 
law governing labor relations in the private sector. It normally has 
five Members. It currently has only two sitting members, and it is 
often deadlocked on issues. It has led to many legal questions being 
raised about the validity of the Board's decisions.
  Craig Becker is an accomplished lawyer and academic. As associate 
general counsel for the Service Employees International Union, Craig 
Becker worked to protect the rights of workers to organize. He has 
argued labor and employment law cases at most levels of the Federal 
court system, including in the Supreme Court of the United States. Is 
there anyone who questions this man is qualified for this job? He 
taught labor law at UCLA, the University of Chicago, and Georgetown 
University. His research and academic work is well respected and cited 
by many others in the field.
  He was first nominated to fill one of the three openings at the NLRB 
in July 2009. He was renominated by President Obama just last month. 
Both last year and last month, the HELP Committee--which is chaired by 
my friend, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, who will be on the floor with 
the ranking minority member, Senator Enzi--approved his nomination. 
Since he was nominated, Mr. Becker has responded to over 300 written 
questions from Republican Senators--more than nearly any other nominee. 
I do not know how many questions are asked of Supreme Court nominees, 
but when you ask 300 questions, it is pretty clear it goes beyond 
needing some information. The idea is to try to trip up the nominee or 
ask so many questions you will wear them out. He has met personally 
with every interested Senator who has wanted to ask him his own 
personal views. He has addressed the concerns of Senators in 
congressional hearings--only the second time an NLRB nominee, 
incidentally, had a second hearing in the last 25 years.
  Throughout this process, Mr. Becker has stated his belief that 
Congress creates labor laws, not the NLRB. I guess there is a parallel 
to this whole argument about judicial activism, where the argument is 
being made on the Republican side that if Mr. Becker is brought to the 
National Labor Relations Board, he is going to make the law. He said, 
clearly, he will not, his job is to basically interpret the law as 
written and to implement the law as Congress has passed it. He said, 
repeatedly, if confirmed, he will apply the law fairly and impartially.
  Confirming Craig Becker will allow the NLRB to move forward with its 
congressionally mandated duties, and I am certainly going to support 
his confirmation.
  I struggle when I hear my Republican colleagues say: Well, it is not 
fair. When a Democrat is elected President, he might appoint someone to 
the National Labor Relations Board who is more friendly to the labor 
unions than a Republican appointee. Is that a stunning revelation to 
anyone? What we are looking for are honest people who have no prejudice 
against either side and who will try to make the system work and make 
the National Labor Relations Board work.
  When I look at some of the statistics about what is going on--the 
number of contested decisions issued by the National Labor Relations 
Board, on a 4-year average, is 426; and the time it takes them, the 
processing time from charge to Board decision is 782 days, more than 2 
years--it tells me they have broken down in terms of their basic 
responsibility under the law.
  If we keep it at two members, and people can question the validity of 
any of their decisions, then those who want to make sure the National 
Labor Relations Board is not an effective working force in our 
government may have their way. I hope they do not. I certainly hope we 
will reach a point where we will approve this man who has stood before 
the HELP Committee and this Senate on two separate occasions, answering 
all the questions that have been offered. He comes with solid 
credentials, in terms of his legal knowledge as well as his life 
experience. He is a person who I know has worked hard to help those 
less fortunate who are looking for a chance for a living wage and 
decent working conditions.
  Are we going to say anyone who comes to the National Labor Relations 
Board who has worked for a labor union is disqualified? Is that the 
position being taken by some? I hope not. That is fundamentally unfair. 
It is akin to saying anyone who owned a business could not be a member 
of the National Labor Relations Board. I would not agree with that.
  I think we need fairness and balance and impartiality. I think Craig 
Becker will bring that. So I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, first of all, just to amplify the record 
on the Lilly Ledbetter case, the Supreme Court did not rule against Ms. 
Ledbetter. They upheld the statute of limitations of 180 days for 
claims filed under civil rights laws. She had come to the court, not a 
few months after the alleged incident, but years and years later. Only 
then did she try to make a case. The Court was upholding the law which 
this Congress passed.
  Secondly, I rise, reluctantly, to oppose the nomination of Craig 
Becker, and I do so based on experience, not based on a whim, not based 
on politics but based on what I have experienced in the past 6 months 
in terms of confirmation in labor-related positions.
  As you may know, I am from Atlanta, GA. That is the home of Delta Air 
Lines that has recently merged with Northwest Airlines to form the 
largest airlines in the United States of America. The National 
Mediation Board oversees labor issues with regard to the industry.
  In the merger of Delta and Northwest, the merger of two different 
companies with different cultures--Delta

[[Page S514]]

less organized and Northwest more--one of the major questions about 
that merger as it related to labor law was what would the law be to 
govern a unionization vote, in this case, of the flight attendants. 
Northwest flight attendants were organized; Delta's were not. For the 
75-year history of the Railway Labor Act in the United States of 
America, the principle of the National Mediation Board called for a 
majority vote of all members of the company in the employee class, 
meaning if there were 1,000 flight attendants in the class, it would 
take 501 votes to pass a motion to organize.
  As we considered the nominees for the National Mediation Board in the 
HELP Committee last year, I spent extensive time questioning the two 
Democrat nominees who were nominated for the Board. I pressed them on 
this very issue trying to ensure that we had what Senator Durbin 
referred to; that is, absolutely equal treatment and not a bias in 
terms of determination of labor decisions. I listened to these 
appointees over and over again say they would be fair, they would not 
be biased, and they did not have a preconceived position, and I voted 
for them.
  Within weeks of being seated, they issued a proposed rule at the 
behest of labor unions, voting 2 to 1 to change the 75-year-old policy. 
In the face of a unionization vote getting ready to take place at the 
world's largest airline, they are attempting change the 75-year policy 
of the National Mediation Board. If they are successful, they will 
allow a simple majority of the number of people voting to replace the 
current policy which is a majority of the total number of employees in 
the class. In the case of the example I gave before in which if there 
were 1,000 people in the class, under existing law it would take 501 to 
organize. That is fair. By changing to a majority of those voting if 
only 100 voted, it would only take 51 to vote to organize the entire 
class of 1,000 employees within a company. That is a radical shift in 
the balance between labor and management, without any changes on the 
ground to merit such a departure from precedent.
  Secondly, many on the other side are always talking about the 
Employee Free Choice Act and how we ought to make it easier to 
organize. In 2008, which is the last year for which I have statistics, 
67 percent of all unionization votes under existing law were in favor 
of organizing. EFCA amounts to a solution toward a problem we don't 
have.
  Mr. Becker is a very gifted, talented attorney. I sat in for Senator 
Enzi as ranking member at the confirmation hearing we had in the HELP 
committee 2 weeks ago, and I asked him about these specific questions. 
He was very careful and crafty in his answers. I came away not 
convinced that the statements of Mr. Acuff, the statements of Mr. 
Iglitzin, and the statements of former NLRB Member Gould were 
inaccurate. Each of those pro-union experts has written that Mr. 
Becker's appointment offers an opportunity to do by regulatory 
authority what could not be done on the floor of the Senate in terms of 
card check and government-written first contracts. This concern, 
combined with the National Mediation Board's refusal to obey 75 years 
of precedent leads me to only one conclusion. Out of an abundance of 
caution, I am going to vote against the confirmation of Mr. Becker in 
hopes the administration will send a nominee to the floor who is 
committed to a balanced treatment of both organized labor and 
management in this country.
  Mr. President, I am grateful for the time, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit for the record a list of 
nearly 675 organizations that have written in opposition to Mr. 
Becker's nomination. These groups represent the backbone of our 
Nation's economy and the catalysts we will need to create new American 
jobs. They believe Mr. Becker's stated views represent a threat to 
economic growth, and they oppose Mr. Becker as a nominee for the 
National Labor Relations Board.
  I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record 
immediately following my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to oppose cloture of 
the nomination of Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor 
Relations Board. My colleagues know it is very unusual to have a 
cloture vote on a HELP Committee nominee, but this will be the second 
in as many weeks. In fact, these two nominees are the only HELP 
nominations I have opposed. Over 40 HELP nominees have been swiftly 
confirmed after appropriate consideration in this Congress, but these 
two nominees are problematic, and instead of withdrawing the 
nominations as has been done in previous administrations, the majority 
is attempting to force them through.
  Craig Becker was first nominated last July, and controversy 
surrounding his nomination has only grown since then. A review of 
decades of writings by Mr. Becker has revealed that he has advocated 
for the most radical theories of labor law, pursuing policies such as 
mandatory unionization where an employee would choose which union to 
join, not whether to join a union; and questioning whether an employer 
has a right to any involvement at all in the unionization questions in 
his workplace.
  In addition to his writings, Mr. Becker has spent the majority of his 
career serving as counsel to the two largest labor organizations in 
America, which has raised questions about his ability to fairly 
adjudicate cases involving those unions.
  On these issues and others, members of the HELP Committee raised a 
number of serious concerns. It has been cited as a negative that 
Republicans on the committee submitted hundreds of written questions to 
Mr. Becker, and it is certainly true that we did ask a lot of 
questions. Last year, Mr. Becker answered 276 questions for the record. 
Following his hearing this month, he was sent more than 100 more.
  The fact that we have submitted over 400 questions and after three 
rounds of questions still do not believe we have gotten definitive 
answers is merely another sign of the deep concerns about this nominee. 
Last week, the chairman noted Mr. Becker has faced more questions than 
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. I am not sure I understand the 
relevance of this fact. I have yet to find the constituent who is 
urging us to ask fewer questions of our nominees to positions of high 
public trust.
  Furthermore, if a nominee garners a greater level of public scrutiny 
and larger than usual volumes of questions, we should ask why. This 
unique scrutiny should be a signal that the individual has raised a 
great level of concern and controversy. A nominee as controversial as 
Craig Becker should not go forward, and for that reason I will oppose 
cloture today.
  The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has had other 
nominees who, right or wrong, became controversial. Some of those 
occurred while I was chairman. Yet not once did I force through a 
nominee on a party-line cloture vote. We faced partisan opposition for 
nominees for Surgeon General, the Food and Drug Administration, and the 
Mine Safety and Health Administration. Oftentimes there appeared to be 
very little basis for that opposition to my side of the aisle. But 
because of the strong opposition, the nominees were not confirmed.
  In the final 2 years of the last administration, the majority leader 
held pro forma sessions to even prevent recess appointments, and now 
the majority, in their control of the calendar, has taken the last 2 
weeks to try to jam through partisan, controversial nominees while the 
public is seeking solutions to the many economic problems facing our 
Nation.
  I wish to point out that there is another way. There are three 
current vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board, and the HELP 
Committee has unanimously approved the President's other two nominees. 
If the Senate wanted to confirm two new members to the Board, it could 
have easily done so today. In fact, it could have done so last year. 
One of these nominees, Mark Pearce, is a labor-side attorney who has 
spent his career representing labor unions. The other is a Republican 
nominee with management-side experience in addition to tenures on the 
staff of the National Labor Relations Board and in the Senate as my 
labor policy director, Brian

[[Page S515]]

Hayes. Yet these nominees did not inspire objections from HELP members 
on either side of the aisle.
  Both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Pearce met with Senators, answered written 
questions--not nearly as many because there weren't the same degree or 
amount of concerns--and convinced us that they were well qualified and 
able to be impartial. Clearly, being linked to interest groups such as 
labor unions and having opposing policy positions is not disqualifying 
for nominees before the HELP Committee. The problem with Mr. Becker's 
nomination is not that he works for unions or that he supports policies 
which many of us oppose. We have approved dozens of nominees with whom 
we disagree.
  The problem is this nominee has shown in his writings and in his 
responses to the committee that his thinking is far outside the 
mainstream. This nominee has failed to convince us that he will not 
attempt to circumvent Congress and impose card check-style measures 
administratively to tilt the playing field against employers.
  For 7 months Senators have been attempting to address and analyze 
concerns raised by the employer community and others regarding Mr. 
Becker's writings, particularly the potential for radical changes in 
labor law that he has advocated and argued can be implemented without 
congressional authorization. We have also heard concerns about the 
nominee's position on recusal, since he spent more than two decades 
working with the Nation's two largest labor organizations.
  There were additional questions about Mr. Becker's status as both an 
employee of a labor union and as an adviser to the President's 
transition team. There were questions about Mr. Becker's possible 
authorship of Executive Orders in that capacity, one of which limited 
the information given to employees about their right to refrain from 
paying certain union dues.
  Finally, there were concerns about Mr. Becker's role as SEIU 
associate general counsel and the SEIU's involvement with the scandal 
surrounding ACORN and former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich. 
Senators attempted to address all of these concerns through interviews, 
written questions, and a hearing. However, not all of the concerns were 
favorably resolved, and last Thursday, the nomination was reported out 
on a party-line vote.
  I have made numerous attempts to alleviate concerns about Mr. 
Becker's stated plans to reinterpret the National Labor Relations Act 
to limit the ability of employers to participate in the process or 
otherwise tilt the playing field unfairly against employers. However, 
his answers have been far from reassuring.
  When asked if he would ever support imposing the main provisions of 
the card check bill through regulatory fiat, he left the door open. He 
answered that while the statute might be interpreted to not permit the 
Board to uniformly strip employees of the ability to have secret ballot 
elections, impose mandatory binding arbitration, and raise penalties on 
employers, if presented with arguments that it would, he would keep an 
open mind.
  He also told me he believed the Board could impose ``quickie 
elections''--one of the main card check alternatives that has been 
discussed. He said he was open to requiring employers to provide 
personal contact information for all of their employees to any union 
that asked. He also made it clear he would be open to broadening the 
use of mandatory bargaining orders in cases where there is no showing 
that a union has the support of a majority of employees.
  Despite the hundreds of written questions he has answered, Mr. Becker 
has failed to convince me he would not enter into the job with a 
preconceived agenda to unfairly tilt the playing field against 
employers, altering the delicate balance of current labor law.

  The relative freedom from industrial strife that has allowed America 
to prosper since enactment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 
is dependent on a balance between the rights of employees to 
collectively bargain and the right of employers to control their 
workplace. It is essential that we not allow the balance to be upended 
now. In this critical time for our economy, our Nation is dealing with 
a 9.7-percent unemployment rate, and more than 11 million Americans are 
drawing unemployment benefits.
  Comparative studies have shown that enactment of the card check 
provision will increase unemployment, making the situation only worse. 
Because of the Board's broad and important agenda, we simply cannot 
take the risk of supporting this nominee.
  Two recent developments have given me additional pause in reviewing 
Mr. Becker's nomination. First, despite Mr. Becker's vague assertions, 
there have been several recent articles and statements from his own 
movement that confirm all our concerns. In The Nation magazine, another 
union lawyer wrote that all of the card check provisions and the card 
check alternative provisions I discussed earlier can be achieved 
without congressional authority and stated this as a reason to confirm 
Becker.
  Former NLRB member, William Gould, made the same point in an article 
last year, and a union official wrote just last week that:

       If we aren't able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we 
     will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and 
     their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to 
     change the rules governing forming a union through 
     administrative action.

  There is obviously a high expectation among organized labor 
constituencies that Mr. Becker can be sent to the National Labor 
Relations Board to deliver wanted policy changes which cannot be 
achieved through Congress. Because he has failed to unequivocally rule 
out that possibility, I can't support his nomination.
  The second reason I am demanding a high degree of certainty in his 
answers is my recent direct experience with nominees who claim to have 
no opinions on certain issues and no preconceived agenda but who, once 
confirmed, immediately take action on what they claim to have no 
preconceived position on. An example of this is the current situation 
at the National Mediation Board, NMB.
  Last year, the Senate unanimously confirmed two nominees from the 
National Mediation Board. Some Members, including myself, specifically 
asked each of them about their position on changing the way a majority 
in a unionization election is measured. In response, both these 
nominees testified they had no preconceived agenda to alter rules that 
had been in place for 75 years. You will recall the Senator from 
Georgia, Senator Isakson, had the same concern and asked them 
specifically, even in private meetings, what their opinion would be. 
Yet practically before the ink had dried on their confirmations, these 
two nominees began pushing through a regulation that is a wholesale 
reversal of those rules to tilt the playing field to the benefit of 
labor unions. In their haste, the Democratic members of the Board 
thoroughly disregarded the rights of the single minority member. The 
minority member was given no notice that an effort to initiate 
rulemaking was underway and, instead, was given 1\1/2\ hours to review 
the final rule proposal to determine if she would support it. They even 
tried to stop her from publishing a dissent to the proposal. There are 
strong indications that the two recently confirmed National Mediation 
Board members were not forthright with the Senate, and it is clear they 
showed no respect for the rights of the Mediation Board minority, the 
regulatory process or the legislative process. In promising Senators to 
keep an open mind going into this decision, these National Mediation 
Board nominees used the very same language Mr. Becker uses today.
  Similarly, the President's nominee for the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration faced many concerns from the small business 
community and others about his possible agenda going into office. 
Undoubtedly, the President's nominee for this position would have some 
views I do not agree with and I fully expect and accept that. But I 
sought to form an understanding with him on an issue that has 
traditionally drawn bipartisan support; that is, compliance assistance 
programs at OSHA that substitute ``gotcha'' inspections with advice and 
guidance to cooperatively create safer workplaces and save the 
government money. When it became clear to me the premier compliance 
assistance program--the Voluntary Protection Program or VPP--was being 
downsized, I asked the OSHA nominee if he supported compliance 
programs.

[[Page S516]]

  He assured me he ``recognized their great value.'' I asked if he 
would reevaluate the decision to downsize it. He assured me he would 
and promised to work with the committee. He was confirmed unanimously. 
Yet when the budget came out last week, it proposed transferring 
program staff to another function and eliminate its funding. This does 
not meet anyone's definition of ``support.''
  Now, Mr. Becker is nominated for a different agency and is a 
different nominee. I certainly don't want to impute the actions of 
others onto Mr. Becker, but my recent experiences with what nominees 
say in the confirmation process and how they act once confirmed has 
forced me to be far more skeptical of vague assurances.
  I am also concerned that Mr. Becker's ethics disclosure paperwork has 
not been updated with the Office of Government Ethics since July 2009, 
nor has the ethics agreement been revised since April 2009. The 
administration has pledged support for transparency and accountability 
and I, therefore, question their decision to rush this nominee through 
without a proper ethics review.
  Independent boards, such as the National Labor Relations Board, are 
entrusted with a great deal of autonomy. The decisions they hand down 
and the regulations they enforce have a great deal of impact on a very 
significant portion of our economy and our Nation's jobs. In the 
Senate, it is our responsibility to determine if these nominees can be 
entrusted with this power or if they would compromise fairness to grant 
favors to special interest groups or former employers.
  Late last week, the Senate invoked cloture on Patricia Smith, by a 
partisan vote of 60 to 32, jamming through a controversial nominee who 
misled the HELP Committee. To be clear, I have been supportive of 
nearly all the nominees who have come before the HELP Committee, and I 
have worked hard with the chairman to swiftly confirm qualified 
nominees and put them into office. But the Senate has an important 
responsibility of advice and consent. To regain the trust of the 
American people, we should demand more accountability from the people 
we are putting into offices of public trust. I urge this administration 
to find qualified nominees who will enjoy broad support in the Senate, 
and I have offered my commitment and past experience to assist with the 
swift confirmation of those qualified nominees.
  For all the above reasons, I will oppose Mr. Becker's nomination to 
serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I hope the other two nominees who are well qualified, 
uncontroversial, and who had bipartisan support will be brought to the 
floor. I also hope this controversial nominee will not be put on the 
Board through a recess appointment if the Senate rejects the nomination 
on a bipartisan basis today. As I mentioned before, anytime there were 
candidates who had that kind of opposition in the past, they were not 
pushed through on a cloture vote and I hope that will be the case and 
the name will be withdrawn.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

 Entities that Oppose Craig Becker's Nomination to the National Labor 
                            Relations Board

       American Hotel and Lodging Association (AH&LA); American 
     Association of Nurse Executives; American Trucking 
     Association; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC); 
     Associated General Contractors of America; College and 
     University Professional Association for Human Resources; Food 
     Marking Institute; HR Policy Association; Independent 
     Electrical Contractors, Inc.; International Foodservice 
     Distributors Association; International Franchise 
     Association; National Association of Manufactures (NAM); 
     National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National 
     Federation of Independent Business; National Pest Management 
     Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; 
     National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors 
     Association; Printing Industries of America; Retail Industry 
     Leaders Association.
       Society for Human Resource Management; Steel Manufacturers 
     Association; US Chamber of Commerce; HR Policy Association; 
     National Retail Federation; The Coalition for a Democratic 
     Workplace; A.O. Smith Corporation; A. Schulman; Accurate 
     Castings, Inc.; Accuride International Inc.; Ace 
     Manufacturing Industries; Aeries Enterprises LLC; Ahaus Tool 
     and Engineering, Inc.; Ahresty Wilmington Corporation; Air 
     Logistics Corporation; All American Mfg. Co; Allegheny 
     Technologies Incorporated; Allied Machine & Engineering 
     Corp.; National Right to Work Committee; Americans for 
     Limited Government; The American Conservative Union.
       Allied Plastics Co., Inc.; Alloy Resources Inc.; Altadis 
     USA, Inc; AM Castle; AMB Enterprises, LLC; American Circuits, 
     Inc.; American Coolair Corporation; American Dehydrated 
     Foods, Inc; American Felt & Filter Company; American Foundry 
     Society; American Hydro Corporation; American Lawn Mower 
     Company; American Safety Razor Company; American Shizuki 
     Corporation; American Shower Door; Amsco Windows; Anchor 
     Fabricators, Inc.; Anthony Timberlands, Inc.; Aries 
     Electronics Inc.; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce/Assoc. 
     Ind. of Arkansas.
       Arm-R-Lite Door Mfg. Company, Inc.; Arobotech Systems, 
     Inc.; Arrow Adhesives Company; Artwoodworking & Mfg. Co.; ASC 
     Profiles Inc.; Ashley Furniture Industries; Associated 
     Industries of Massachusetts; Atlantic Mold & Machining Corp.; 
     Atlas Machine and Supply Inc.; ATS Medical, Inc.; Auburn 
     Gear, Inc.; Auto Truck, Inc.; Avtron Aerospace, Inc.; Bannish 
     Lumber, Inc.; Batesville Products, Inc.; Beacon Converters, 
     Inc.; Bead Industries, Inc.; Beck Steel; Bell Laboratories, 
     Inc.; Belton Industries, Inc.
       Bergsen Inc.; Berkley Screw Machine Products, Inc.; Berlin 
     Metals; Bertch Cabinet Mfg., Inc.; Best Chairs, Inc.; BesTech 
     Tool Corporation; Better Baked Foods, Inc.; Betts Industries, 
     Inc.; BH Electronics, Inc.; Bicron Electronics Co; Big D 
     Metalworks; BioResearch Associates, Inc.; Bison Gear & 
     Engineering Corp.; Blue Bell Creameries, L.P.; BlueScope 
     Steel North America; Bollinger Shipyards, Inc.; Bommer 
     Industries, Inc.; Boston Steel & Mfg. Co.; BPI, Inc.; Braun 
     Northwest, Inc.
       Brick Industry Association; Bridgestone Americas, Inc.; 
     Brigham Exploration Company; Brinkman International Group, 
     Inc.; Broan-NuTone LLC; Broderson Manufacturing Corp.; Brush 
     Engineered Materials; Buckeye Fabricating Company; C and M 
     Manufacturing Incorporated; Calgon Carbon Corporation; 
     Cambridge Specialty Co.; Cameron Manufacturing & Design, 
     Inc.; Cardinal Systems Inc; Carter Products Co., Inc.; Case 
     Systems, Inc.; CASHCO Inc.; CB Manufacturing & Sales Co., 
     Inc.; CEMCO Inc.; Cemen Tech, Inc.
       Centennial Bolt, Inc.; Central Bindery Company; Central 
     States Fire App LLC; CFX Battery, Inc.; Chaney Enterprises; 
     Channellock Inc.; Chatsworth Products, Inc.; Chemstar 
     Products; Clinch-Tite Corp.; Clow Stamping Co. CMD 
     Corporation; Coast Controls, Inc.; Coastal Forest 
     Resources; Coastal Plywood Company; Coating Excellence 
     International; ColorMatrix Corporation; Commercial Cutting 
     and Graphics, LLC; Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation; 
     Construction Specialties, Inc.; Con-way, Inc.; Cooper Tire 
     & Rubber Company.
       Corbett Package Company; Crafted Plastics, Inc.; 
     CrossCountry Courier; CRT, Custom Products, Inc.; Crysteel 
     Manufacturing Incorporated; Custom Applied Technology Corp.; 
     Custom Tool and Grinding, Inc.; Dakota Awards, Inc.; Dakota 
     Specialty Milling, Inc.; Dart Container Corporation; Davron 
     Technologies, Inc.; Dayton Industries Inc.; Deist Industries, 
     Inc.; Delta Power Company; Dews Research Laboratories, LLC.; 
     Dietz & Watson, Inc.; Dixie Printing & Packaging Corporation; 
     Dixon Insurance Inc.; DLH Industries, Inc.; Domain 
     Communications LLC.
       Don R Fruchey, Inc.; DORMA Architectural Hardware; Dorner 
     Mfg. Corp.; Drawn Metals Corporation; Drenth Brothers Inc.; 
     DRT Mfg. Co.; DTR Industries, Inc.; Duke Manufacturing Co.; 
     DuPage Machine Products; Duraclass by TBEI; Du-Well Grinding 
     Enterprises, Inc.; E&E Manufacturing Co. Inc.; E.D. Bullard 
     Company; East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc.; East-Lind Heat 
     Treat, Inc.; Eclipse Inc.; Edison Price Lighting; Elan 
     Technology, Inc.; Electro Arc Mfg. Co. Inc.; Electronic 
     Systems, Inc.
       Ellwood Group, Inc.; EM-CO Metal Products, Inc.; Emery 
     Corporation; Energy Exchanger Company; Engineered Building 
     Design, L.C.; Ervin Industries; Everhard Products, Inc.; 
     Exxel Outdoors, Inc.; F.C. Brengman & Associates; F.N. 
     Sheppard & Co.; Falcon Plastics, Inc.; Fargo Assembly Co.; 
     Fiber Resources, Inc.; Fiberglass Coatings Inc.; Flambeau, 
     Inc.; Flexcon Industries Inc.; FONA International; Food 
     Services of America; Forrest Machine, Inc.; Foster 
     Transformer Co.
       Founders Insurance Group, Inc.; Fox Valley Molding Inc.; 
     Foxx Equipment Company; Franklin International; Frasal Tool; 
     Fredon Corporation; Freedom Corrugated, LLC; Freeport Welding 
     & Fabricating, Inc.; GCR Associates; Gemini, Inc.; General 
     Machine Products Co.; General Steel and Supply Company; 
     Genest Concrete Works, Inc.; Geokon Inc.; Glas-Col, LLC; 
     Glasforms Inc.; Glastender, Inc.; Glier's Meats Inc.; Globe 
     Products Inc.
       Gold'n Plump Poultry; Gossner Foods Inc.; Grande Cheese 
     Company; Granite Rock Company; Graphite Metallizing; Green 
     Bay Packaging Inc.; Grossman Iron & Steel Company; Gruber 
     Systems Incorporated; Guardian Industries Corp.; Hamilton 
     Caster & Mfg. Co.; Hammond Group, Inc.; Harden Furniture 
     Company, Inc.; Hardwood Products Company; Harold Beck & Sons, 
     Inc.; Henry Brick Company, Inc.; Henry Molded Products; 
     Hercules Drawn Steel Corporation; HES Inc.; HFI, LLC.; 
     Hialeah Metal Spinning, Inc.
       High Company LLC; High Industries, Inc.; Hiwasse 
     Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Hobson & Motzer, Inc.; Holden 
     Industries, Inc.; Horizon Steel Co.; HTI Cybernetics;

[[Page S517]]

     Hudapack Metal Treating Companies; Huron Automatic Screw Co.; 
     Illinois Tool Works Inc.; Industrial Fasteners Institute; 
     Industrial Metal Fab, Inc.; Industrial Nut Corp.; Industrial 
     Spring Corporation; Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute; 
     International Hydraulics Inc.; Iten Industries; J.C. Steele & 
     Sons, Inc.; J.T. Fennell Co., Inc.
       Jaquith Industries Inc.; Jasper Desk Company, Inc.; JELD-
     WEN; Jesco Industries Inc.; Jobbers Moving & Storage; John 
     Sterling Corporation; Johnsen Trailer Sales, Inc.; 
     Johnsonville Sausage LLC; Jorgensen Conveyors, Inc.; Kapstone 
     Paper and Packaging Corp.; Kell-Strom Tool Company Inc.; 
     Kercher Machine Works, Inc.; Keystone Nitewear Co. Inc.; 
     Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association; Klann 
     Incorporated; Kleenair Products Co.; Koike Aronson, Inc.; 
     Koller-Craft Plastic Products; Konz Wood Products.
       Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc.; L.D. McCauley, LLC; La Deau Hinge 
     Company; Lamiglas, Inc.; Lapp Insulators LLC; Laserage 
     Technology Corporation; Layton Truck Equipment Co., LLC; 
     Leech Carbide; LEECO Spring International; Leed Himmel Ind.; 
     Lifoam Industries; Liftmoore, Inc.; Lord Corporation; Lovejoy 
     Tool Company, Inc.; LSI Industries Inc; LSI Metal Fabrication 
     Division of LSI Industries Inc.; LSI MidWest Lighting; Luick 
     Quality Gage & Tool, Inc.; Lunar Industries, Inc.; M&M Hi 
     Tech Fab, LLC.
       Mack Boring and Parts Co.; Mansfield Industries Inc.; 
     Markel Corporation; Mar-Mac Wire, Inc.; Martindale Electric 
     Company; Massachusetts Container Corp.; Materials Processing, 
     Inc.; Mathews Brothers Company; Mathison Metalfab, 
     Inc.; Mazak Corporation; McAlpin Industries, Inc.; 
     McNaughton & Gunn, Inc.; McNichols Company; M-D Building 
     Products, Inc.; Meadows Mills Inc.; Merrick Pet Care; 
     Merritt Equipment Co.; Metal Moulding Corp.; Metal Powder 
     Industries Federation; Metal Products Company.
       Metallized Carbon Corporation; Metals Service Center 
     Institute; Metalworks Inc.; MET-L-FLO Inc.; Metl-Span LLC; 
     MFRI, Inc.; Micro Abrasives Corporation; Mid Atlantic 
     Manufacturing & Hydraulics Inc.; Middletown Tube Works, Inc.; 
     Midmark Corporation; Midwest Fabricating Company; Midwest 
     Metal Products, Inc.; Mike-sells Potato Chip Company; Milbank 
     Manufacturing Company; Miles Fiberglass and Composets; Mina 
     Safety Appliances Co.; Mississippi Lime Company; Modern Metal 
     Processing, Inc.; Molded Fiber Glass Companies; Montana 
     Silversmiths Inc.
       Moore Industries International Inc.; Morgan Ohare, Inc.; 
     MTD Products Inc.; MTH Pumps; Mullinix Packages, Inc.; N.C. 
     Industries, Inc.; NACCO Industries, Inc.; National 
     Association of Manufacturers; National Bronze Mfg.; National 
     Capital Flag Co. Inc.; National Ceramic Company; National 
     Solid Wastes Management Association; National Tube Form; 
     Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Nevada Heat 
     Treating, Inc.; Nevada Manufacturers Association; New Jersey 
     Business & Industry Association; Nordex, Incorporated; North 
     American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers.
       North American Die Casting Association; North Dakota 
     Chamber of Commerce; North Dakota Petroleum Marketers & North 
     Dakota Retail Associations; Northeast PA Manufacturers & 
     Employers Association; Northeast Prestressed Products; 
     Northern Concrete Pipe Inc.; Nosco CTX; Nosco, Inc.; Novelis; 
     NPC, Inc.; O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.; Oil City Iron Works, 
     Inc.; Oil-Dri Corporation of America; Olympian Precast, Inc.; 
     Olympian Precast, Inc.; OMCO Holdings, Inc.; Omega Design 
     Corporation; Omega Precision Corp.; Open-Ended Response; OSI/
     ISI/SunnyMaids.
       Paper Machinery Corporation; Parkway Products; Parts Depot 
     Inc.; Paulo Products Company; Pawling Corporation; Peerless 
     Saw Company; Pella Corporation; Pennsylvania Manufacturers' 
     Association; Penske Corporation; Penske Truck Leasing; Pepsi-
     Cola Bottling Co., Inc. of Norton; Pepsi-Cola Bottling 
     Company of New Haven, MO; Pequot Tool & Mfg., Inc.; Perlick 
     Corporation; Pete Lien & Sons, Inc.; Peterson Manufacturing 
     Co.; PGT Industries, Inc.; Phoenix Electric Mfg. Co.; Pine 
     Hall Brick Co., Inc.; Plastic Molded Concepts.
       Plasticolors, Inc.; Plastics One; PMF Industries, Inc.; 
     Polyfab Corp; Portec, Inc.; Power Curbers Inc.; PPG 
     Industries; PQ Corporation; Prairie Tool Co. Inc.; Precision 
     Automation Company, Inc.; Precision Machined Products 
     Association; Precision Steel Warehouse, Inc.; Pretzels, Inc.; 
     Price Pump Company; Printed Specialties Inc.; Process 
     Equipment, Inc.; Production Specialties Corporation; Quadrant 
     Tool and Manufacturing; Quality Chaser Company.
       Radiant Steel Products Company; Radix Wire Company; Rain 
     Flow USA, Inc.; Rainey Road Holdings, Inc.; Rampe Mfg Co 
     Torque Transmission Division; Ramsey Products Corporation; 
     Ranco Fertiservice, Inc.; RdF Corporation; Red Bud 
     Industries, Inc.; Reed Mfg Services; Remanco Hydraulics Inc.; 
     Reuther Mold & Mfg. Co.; Riggs Industries and subsidiaries; 
     Roaring Spring Blank Book Co.; Roberts Automatic Products, 
     Inc.; Robroy Industries; Rock Industries, Inc.; RoMan 
     Manufacturing, Inc.; Roppe Corporation; Roquette America 
     Inc.; Roth Horowitz, LLC.
       Route 94 Consulting; ROW, INC; RTI International Metals, 
     Inc.; Rugby Manufacturing; Schatz Bearing Corporation; Scot 
     Forge Company; Scott Douglas Porter, Esq.; Scott Metals Inc; 
     Seals Eastern Inc.; Searing Industries; SGS Tool Company; 
     Shar Systems, Inc; Showplace Wood Products, Inc.; Shultz 
     Steel Co; Signal Mountain Cement Company; Silbond 
     Corporation; Sioux Corporation; Siplast Inc.; Sirois Tool 
     Co., Inc.; SJE Rhombus.
       Smith Setzer & Sons Inc; Solar Atmospheres Corporation; 
     Sommer Metalcraft Corporation; Southco Industries, Inc.; 
     Southeastern Hose Inc.; Southern Alloy Corporation; Southern 
     Champion Tray LP; Southland Tube, Inc,; Spirax Sarco, Inc.; 
     Spuncast, Inc.; St. Armands Baking Co.; Standex International 
     Corporation; Star Cutter Company; Star Iron Works, Inc.; 
     Steel Manufacturers Association; Steelscape, Inc.; Steffes 
     Corporation; Stellar Industries, Inc.; Sterking Engineering 
     Corp.; Sterling Engineering Corporation.
       Sterling Machine Co. Inc.; Stone City Products, Inc.; 
     Stoner, Inc.; Stoneridge Inc.; Streator Dependable 
     Mfg. Strongwell; Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.; Suhner 
     Manufacturing, Inc.; Summers Manufacturing Co., Inc.; 
     Sunnyside Corporation; Superior Graphite Co.; Superior Oil 
     Company, Inc.; Superior Woodcraft, Inc.; Surpass Chemical 
     Co., Inc.; Swanson Industries, Inc.; Sweet Street 
     Desserts; Syncro Corporation; Systems Services of America, 
     Inc.
       Tailored Label Products; TBEI, Inc.; TCI, LLC; Teakdecking 
     Systems Inc.; Techsys Chassis, Inc.; Tecumseh Packaging 
     Solutions, Inc.; Tegrant Corporation; TekTone Sound & Signal 
     Mfg., Inc.; Templeton Coal Company, Inc.; Tennessee Chamber 
     of Commerce & Industry; Tennsco Corp.; Ten-Tec, Inc.; Texas 
     Association of Business; Textile Rental Services Association 
     of America; The Adams Company; The Challenge Machinery 
     Company; The DUPPS Co.; The Envelope Printery, Inc.; The Hill 
     and Griffith Company; The Kirk-Habicht Company.
       The Knapheide Manufacturing Company; The Manitowoc Company, 
     Inc.; The MasonBox Co.; The Nelson Co. Inc.; The ROHO Group; 
     The Schwan Food Company; The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company; The 
     Sheffer Corporation; The Shockey Companies; The Timken 
     Company; ThermoSafe Brands; Thomas Instrument Co.; Thompson 
     Management Associates; Thomson Lamination Company, Inc.; 
     ThyssenKrupp Waupaca Inc; Tiefenbach North America, LLC; 
     Tiffin Powder Coating Specialists; Timber Truss Housing 
     Systems, Inc.; Torco Inc.; Transducers Direct, LLC.
       Transportation Costing Group, Inc.; Tree Top, Inc.; Trim-
     Tex, Inc.; Trumpf Inc.; Tubodyne Company Inc.; Twin City 
     Roofing, LLC; Tyco Electronics; Ultra Tech Machinery Inc.; 
     Unex Manufacturing Inc.; United Equipment Accessories, Inc.; 
     Uniweld Products Inc.; Unlimited Services; USG Corporation; 
     Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company; Valley Converting Co., 
     Inc.; Vanamatic Company; Ventahood, Ltd; Vermeer; Virginia 
     Manufacturers Association.
       W M I; W. R. Meadows, Inc. Wagstaff, Inc.; Wahpeton 
     Breckinridge Area Chamber of Commerce; Walnut Custom Homes, 
     Inc.; Walters Brothers Lumber Mfg., Inc.; Warren 
     Distribution, Inc; Waste Equipment Technology Association; 
     Waukesh Metal Products; Weiss-Aug Co. Inc.; Weldon Solutions; 
     Werthan Packaging, Inc.; WESCO International, Inc.; Western 
     Extrusions; Westside Finishing Co., Inc.; Wildeck, 
     Inc.; Williams-Pyro, Inc.; Winslow LifeRaft Company; Wire 
     Belt Company of America.
       Wisconsin Valley Concrete Products Co.; Wood Connection, 
     Inc; Wood's Powr-Grip Co. Inc.; WPT Power Transmission Corp.; 
     Xybix Systems, Inc; Yancey's Fancy, Inc.; Young's Welding, 
     Inc.; Zippo Manufacturing Co.
       Apartment & Office Building Association; Arlington Chamber 
     of Commerce; Associated Builders & Contractors--Virginia 
     Chapter; Associated General Contractors; Bedford Area Chamber 
     of Commerce; Bristol Chamber of Commerce; Chase City Chamber 
     of Commerce; Dinwiddie County Chamber of Commerce; Dulles 
     Regional Chamber of Commerce; Fairfax Chamber of Commerce; 
     Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce; Goochland 
     Chamber of Commerce; Greater Augusta Regional Chamber of 
     Commerce; Greater Bluefield Chamber of Commerce; Greater 
     Reston Chamber of Commerce; Greater Richmond Chamber of 
     Commerce; Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce.
       Halifax County Chamber of Commerce; Hampton Roads Chamber 
     of Commerce; Hampton Roads Utility and Heavy Contractors 
     Association; Harrisonburg-Rockingham Chamber of Commerce; 
     Heavy Construction Contractors Association; Home Building 
     Association of Richmond; Home Builders Association of 
     Virginia; Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce; Loudoun County 
     Chamber of Commerce; Lynchburg Regional Chamber of Commerce; 
     NAIOP Northern Virginia; National Federation of Independent 
     Business; Northern Virginia Technology Council; Oilheat 
     Association of Central Virginia; Old Dominion Highway 
     Contractors Association; Petersburg Chamber of Commerce; 
     Precast Concrete Association of Virginia; Prince William 
     County-Greater Manassas Chamber of Commerce; Prince William 
     Regional Chamber of Commerce; Richmond Area Municipal 
     Contractors Association; Roanoke Regional Chamber of 
     Commerce; Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce.
       Virginia Agribusiness Council; Virginia Apartment & 
     Management Association; Virginia Asian Chamber of Commerce; 
     Virginia Assisted Living Association; Virginia Association of 
     Broadcasters; Virginia Association of Health Plans; Virginia 
     Association of Chain Drug Stores; Virginia Association for

[[Page S518]]

     Commercial Real Estate; Virginia Association for Home Care 
     and Hospice; Virginia Association of Nonprofit Homes for the 
     Aging; Virginia Association of Roofing Contractors; Virginia 
     Autobody Legislative Committee; Virginia Automatic 
     Merchandising Association; Virginia Automobile Dealers 
     Association; Virginia Biotechnology Association; Virginia 
     Business Council; Virginia Cable Telecommunications 
     Association; Virginia Chamber of Commerce; Virginia Coal 
     Association; Virginia Economic Developers Association.
       Virginia FREE; Virginia Health Care Association; Virginia 
     Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Virginia Hospital and 
     Healthcare Association; Virginia Hospitality and Travel 
     Association; Virginia Manufacturers Association; Virginia 
     Motorcycle Dealers Association; Virginia Petroleum, 
     Convenience, and Grocery Association; Virginia Poultry 
     Federation; Virginia Propane Gas Association; Virginia Ready-
     Mixed Concrete Association; Virginia Retail Federation; 
     Virginia Retail Merchants Association; Virginia 
     Transportation Construction Alliance; Virginia Trucking 
     Association; Virginia Wholesalers & Distributors.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise in support of the 
confirmation of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.
  It is policymakers--not outside organizations, it is not political 
strategists, it is not anti-union activists, and it is not pro-union 
advocates--who are making this decision. It is policymakers--100 
Members of the Senate who are asked to confirm the nomination of Craig 
Becker to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, 
NLRB.
  It is something we have done in this country since Franklin 
Roosevelt, in the 1930s, when the National Labor Relations Board was 
formed. Decade after decade, this body has voted for National Labor 
Relations Board nominees who are philosophically pro-union, 
philosophically anti-union or promanagement and not so promanagement. 
Yet, with Craig Becker, the Republicans have drawn a line in the sand--
something that simply didn't used to happen around here. When I hear my 
colleagues say we can't rush this through, only in the Senate, when 
somebody is nominated by the President in April--how many months ago is 
that--8 or 9 months ago--would anybody say we are rushing it through by 
doing it in February. I guess it is 10 months ago. It doesn't make 
sense to me.
  Since its creation 75 years ago, the NLRB has served a critical and 
independent function: Protecting workers against unfair labor practices 
and protecting businesses against unfair allegations. They struck a 
balance because both sides have been represented. Those with a strong 
management philosophy and those with a strong union philosophy have 
worked together on the NLRB.
  I have listened to Craig Becker in front of our Committee that 
Chairman Harkin chairs and of which Senator Enzi is the ranking member. 
I have listened to Mr. Becker sit there and tell us when he is in 
negotiations with management--yes, he did represent labor unions. But 
we are not allowed to have them on the NLRB? Is that the new idea--that 
Republicans don't want anybody with that philosophy, anybody who might 
have worked for a labor union? Do we not want them on the Board because 
they actually believe workers should have more rights rather than less 
rights--the way it was during the Bush administration, when the 
Department of Labor did everything they could to weaken labor rights, 
when we saw the middle class in these last 10 years shrink because 
workers were denied the rights to fight back when they wanted to join a 
union or when workers simply wanted to get backpay or when workers were 
mistreated and earned their pay but weren't getting it. We needed 
somebody in that administration to fight for them, but they didn't have 
that at the Department of Labor. I guess those are the good old days we 
should return to.
  Even though we have done it this way for decades, people with 
promanagement philosophies and pro-union philosophies getting on this 
Board--and as Mr. Becker said in his testimony, when he is part of a 
union-management negotiation, when he is representing a union, he 
understands what both sides need to understand. He tries to put himself 
in the shoes of the other side. If you are a union representative, you 
know management has interests that are legitimate and they have goals 
they want; and you know management, generally, is going to play 
straight. If you are on the management side, you look at the union the 
same way.
  That is how Mr. Becker has been trained and how he thinks. That is 
why I know, even though he has a pro-union philosophy, he will be fair-
minded. I know he will serve in the tradition of NLRB appointees from 
both parties for decades. He will serve in the tradition of other NLRB 
appointees--some pro-union and some promanagement. Yet Republicans, 
since April--Mr. Becker was nominated in April--have tried every trick 
in the book to keep him off the NLRB. So that is April, May, June, 
July, August, September, October, November, December, January, and now 
it is mid-February. The Republicans are saying: Why are we rushing this 
through? Are they so confident they are going to defeat President 
Barack Obama in the next election that they don't want to put anybody 
with his philosophy on the NLRB, and do they think they can stall until 
January 2013? Is that the way they want to run the government?
  Unfortunately, when nominee after nominee--we saw it last week with 
Patricia Smith. If they have anything to do with siding with workers 
and with being proworker or promiddle class, then we cannot rush. We 
have to keep asking questions.
  The fact is, you know, Madam President, representing the State of New 
York, what this has meant. What we are seeing is, they asked dozens of 
questions. In fact, there have been more questions asked of Craig 
Becker for the NLRB than of Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. 
Supreme Court. Craig Becker's isn't a lifetime appointment. It is an 
important job, but it is not as important as the Supreme Court, which 
is a lifetime appointment. Yet they have gone after him with more 
viciousness, questions, and suspicions--and I might add more cynicism--
than perhaps any nominee since I have been in the Senate.
  The NLRB matters to workers and to businesses. They simply cannot do 
their jobs unless we fill these appointments. That is what the 
Republicans are blocking. I would say it isn't good for business to 
keep these jobs open. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
on the health care bill, protected the insurance companies and the drug 
companies, and on the trade bills, they protect the companies that 
outsource jobs overseas. I know they like to do that. They are not 
protecting business when they keep Craig Becker off the NLRB. What they 
are doing is continuing the dysfunction of the NLRB because too many of 
those jobs are vacant.
  That is why it is important the NLRB protects the rights of workers 
to organize into unions and, equally important, it protects the rights 
of businesses to air their grievances. I simply don't understand why 
most of my colleagues on the other side are opposed to giving working 
Americans fair treatment. Unions exist in this country and businesses 
exist. Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
rather only one of those groups existed, but our economy works best 
when they work together and get along. If they want to take these 
labor-management fights, as they have, to the floor of the Senate, what 
does that mean for our future and for the middle class?
  The Chair knows, whether it is in Albany or Buffalo or Schenectady, 
NY, or whether it is Toledo or Youngstown or Mansfield, OH, a union 
working well with businesses--when labor and management work together--
strengthens the middle class. When we have this kind of class warfare 
on the floor of the Senate, when my friends on the other side of the 
aisle will do anything to keep someone who has a pro-union philosophy 
out of an appointed position--again, in April the President nominated 
Mr. Becker, so that is May, June, July, August, September, October, 
November, December, January and now it is February and they say we are 
rushing it. I don't think anybody in America--even the most lethargic, 
slow-moving, half-dead operation in the country--thinks it is rushing 
it when it takes us 10 months to get somebody through.
  We know what they did on the health care bill--delay, delay, delay, 
delay.

[[Page S519]]

That is arguable and that is a difficult and complex issue. But on 
this? Just to be clear, there is no doubt about the qualifications of 
Craig Becker.
  He earned his bachelor and law degrees from Yale University. He 
served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for the Chief 
Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for 30 years. 
This is not some ``newbie'' labor pawn nobody knows anything about who 
does not have experience. For almost 30 years he has practiced labor 
and employment law with the highest skill and fairness in front of 
nearly every U.S. Court of Appeals and in front of the U.S. Supreme 
Court.
  He has been professor at some of the Nation's premier law schools. He 
has earned the trust and admiration of students, faculty, and opponents 
of labor-management kinds of discussions. His scholarly works have been 
published in the Nation's leading law journals and periodicals. His 
scholarly works are also mandatory reading for law students taking 
labor and employment courses, whether they are prolabor or 
promanagement. He is often cited by fellow lawyers and scholars. In 
fact, 66 professors of labor and employment law from our Nation's 
premier law schools have described Becker as a nominee with 
``unparalleled qualifications . . . whose scholarship reflects great 
respect for and deep knowledge of the law. He weighs and considers all 
arguments in a fair and honest manner.''
  That sounds like the kind of nominee we want on the National Labor 
Relations Board. I would add, most importantly, I said a moment ago to 
serve the interests of the middle class, to serve the interests of this 
country, we need to fill these jobs with qualified people. It is bad 
for labor not to have Craig Becker on that Board. It is bad for 
management not to have Craig Becker on that Board. That is clear by 
what respected management lawyers have said. They have urged the Senate 
to quickly confirm Mr. Becker--these are management lawyers--because of 
his fairness and his sound judgment.
  He has answered, as I said, in writing, more than 300 questions from 
the Republicans on the Senate HELP Committee.
  This is not very entertaining. I was almost entertained when my 
friends--and I have heard at least three Senators on the other side of 
the aisle do this with Craig Becker's appointment. They brought up 
ACORN. When Republicans cannot think of anything else to say, when they 
cannot think of any arguments that work, they throw in ACORN: He knew 
somebody at ACORN; he must have had something to do with ACORN. If no 
arguments work, it is time to try ACORN out and tie Craig Becker right 
to ACORN, whatever ACORN is. It would be amusing if they did not use it 
time after time. He must be a bad nominee because he worked with 
somebody from ACORN or he worked with somebody from the Service 
Employees International Union or he worked with Governor Blagojevich in 
Illinois.
  That is the kind of guilt by association that I thought this 
institution stopped doing 55 years ago when Joe McCarthy was censured, 
that we were not going to continue to use guilt by association.
  It might be ACORN, the SEIU--and I apologize; I need to say this, 
Madam President. My daughter works for the SEIU. So before somebody 
points out his daughter works for SEIU, that is why he is doing it--the 
fact is, Craig Becker served honorably, he served very appropriately, 
and he is very qualified. It is about time we do this. It has been 10 
months. We have waited too long. I ask my colleagues to put aside some 
of their biases. He has answered 300 questions. Vote to confirm Craig 
Becker.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to share a few thoughts on the 
nomination of Judge Joseph A. Greenaway to the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals on which I think we will be voting later today. I look forward 
to supporting his nomination. He has a good record as a district court 
judge. I think almost all of my colleagues, if not all, will support 
him. But I wish to take a moment to correct the record regarding some 
allegations that have been made by my Democratic colleagues regarding 
the processing of this nomination.
  Sometimes we have controversial nominees, such as Mr. Becker. And if 
anyone would care to listen to Senator Enzi's comments, they will see 
why there are legitimate concerns about that nomination. Some of the 
nominees are not controversial and should move forward at a steady pace 
for confirmation in the Senate. Most of the nominations that have been 
submitted for positions in the Federal Government in the Department of 
Justice and on the Federal courts have moved forward rapidly without 
controversy. If one is controversial, the Senate should take its time 
and give full consideration of it.
  Last week my colleague from New Jersey accused the Republicans of 
``objecting'' every time the majority leader tried to schedule a vote 
on Judge Greenaway. I have to say my colleagues are seriously 
misinformed and I am not happy to be unfairly criticized for holding up 
the nomination. Let me explain exactly what happened.
  As Chairman Leahy has acknowledged, the majority leader, Senator 
Reid, did not seek Republican consent to proceed with this nomination 
on the floor of the Senate until 2 weeks ago, and that was late on a 
Friday afternoon. The Republicans were able to clear the nomination and 
allow it to move forward with a modest time agreement before a final 
vote and allow the kind of discussion that we are having today.
  Ironically, the Judiciary Committee, however, was not even able to 
process Judge Greenaway's nomination to move forward with it, which was 
submitted to the Senate in June by President Obama. President Obama 
submitted the nomination in June, but the committee could not move 
forward with a vote until September. Why was that? The reason was one 
of the home State Democratic Senators down here complaining failed to 
send in their blue slip. Senator Leahy is not going to move a nominee 
without the consent of the home State Senators--and I respect him for 
that. He is the Democratic chairman of the committee, but he has a 
policy, as his predecessors all had, that he is going to give the home 
State Senators the opportunity to approve a nominee before he even has 
a hearing in committee.
  The nominee was delayed 4 months by a failure of the home State 
Senators--or at least one of them--to acknowledge their approval by 
returning what we refer to as a blue slip. After that occurred, the 
committee promptly moved forward with a hearing and unanimously voted 
for Judge Greenaway's nomination in October.
  Today is the time the majority leader has chosen as the time he 
desired to bring it up for a vote. He could have brought it up in 
October, November, December, or January. He chose to bring it up now. I 
am not one who thinks it is my fault that it has not been brought up.
  The same thing happened to Judge Beverly Martin to the Eleventh 
Circuit. She was unanimously approved by the committee and had the 
support of her home State Senators. Months went by before she got her 
vote. It was unanimous to confirm her. It wasn't anybody's fault but 
the Democratic leadership's fault.
  My colleagues always complain about holding up nominees, and they 
themselves are not moving them in an expeditious manner. Sometimes the 
President is slow to make nominations. As a result, we get complaints 
that it is the Republicans' fault. It is just not.
  If we have an objection--a serious objection--that should be 
respected, we should state it, and we should bring it to the floor and 
discuss the nomination, as is occurring with Mr. Becker.
  Compare that to the unreasonable delays of judicial nominations that 
President Bush sought. For example, Shalom Stone was nominated for this 
very seat. The reason it is vacant and the reason it is being filled 
today is because Shalom Stone was blocked. Stone was nominated in July 
of 2007 and was basically pocket-filibustered by the Democratic 
majority. He never received a hearing in committee. He never even 
received a hearing in committee. His nomination, therefore, lapsed at 
the end of President Bush's term. That is how Judge Greenaway was 
nominated.

[[Page S520]]

  On average, President Bush's circuit nominees waited nearly a year 
for confirmation--a year on average for circuit court nominees.
  As for Judge Greenaway, he, like many of President Obama's nominees, 
I am pleased to say, has openly rejected the empathy standard.
  In his response to a followup question, Judge Greenaway stated this 
about the controversial empathy standard:

       Empathy cannot play a role in a judge's consideration of a 
     case or in determining what the law means. I have told 
     lawyers who appear before me that as a human being, I may 
     have empathy for their client, but as a judge, I have none 
     because that is not my job. The pure exercise of empathy in 
     decisionmaking would lead to unsound and inconsistent 
     decisions.

  That is a solid statement of what I think most judges believe, 
Republicans and Democrats alike. But, unfortunately, it is not the 
philosophy stated by the President of the United States when he said he 
was going to look for empathy in nominees to the bench.
  Empathy is contrary to the oath a judge takes, which states:

       I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice 
     without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor 
     and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially 
     discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . .

  That is the oath they take to be impartial. We need judges who are 
honorable, intelligent, capable, and who understand their role to 
enforce the laws as written and to be impartial as they carry out that 
duty.
  People talk about their backgrounds, their experiences--what are they 
saying? They are saying that my background, my ethnicity, my religion, 
my rural or urban environment allows me to see things in a way that may 
be different and, therefore, I am empowered to bring those ideas, 
concepts, and philosophies to my decisionmaking process, which I 
suggest is very much akin to saying I believe I can bring my biases to 
the decisionmaking process. They are directly contrary to the American 
ideal of an impartial judge, a neutral umpire who calls balls and 
strikes without regard for which team they are for or not for.
  These are lifetime appointments. We look at these nominations 
carefully. These nominees must demonstrate they will follow the plain 
meaning of the law and not allow their own personal biases and 
prejudices to influence their decisionmaking process.
  Based on his testimony at the hearing, his assurances and answers to 
followup questions, I believe Judge Greenaway will do that. I am proud 
to support him as I have supported most of President Obama's nominees. 
But we do have a responsibility to analyze these nominees' records, to 
hold fair and rigorous hearings, to ask for additional time, if that is 
necessary, to ensure each nominee is given the scrutiny that Congress 
is required to give before the elevation to a lifetime appointment by 
which they are no longer subject to review by the people of our 
country. We allow them to be an independent branch, but we have to 
insist that they be independent and objective as they render their 
opinions.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, in 25 years in the Senate, this is the 
first time I've seen a vote on a nominee to the National Labor 
Relations Board fraught with such controversy and subject even to a 
filibuster. But I regret to say it is controversy manufactured by the 
Senate minority for only one reason--a filibuster as political tactic 
to stonewall President Obama at every turn.
  Consequently, this nomination is an important test of the minority, a 
test of all those who for years under President Bush repeated and 
repeated demands for ``up or down votes'' on nominees, and got them 
without the kind of 8-month delays that have scuttled Craig Becker's 
nomination.
  It is also a test of whether the Senate minority will accept the 
President's overtures to work together for the benefit of the American 
people or whether they will continue to vote strictly along party lines 
to obstruct those efforts for no reason other than political gains for 
their party.
  No one disputes that Craig Becker is one of the preeminent 
authorities on labor law in the United States. He has taught at 
Georgetown, UCLA, and the University of Chicago and has authored 
numerous articles on labor and employment issues. He is a skilled 
litigator, who has advocated for workers' interests in virtually all 
Federal courts of appeals, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Some of my colleagues have expressed concern about Mr. Becker's 
nomination because of his academic writings. It is true that Mr. Becker 
has published numerous articles on labor and employment law in 
scholarly journals, including the Harvard Law Review and the Chicago 
Law Review. His extensive writings argue for law labor reforms to allow 
workers to exercise their rights to associate and organize. But since 
when has there been anything disqualifying about taking a critical 
approach to existing law and challenging convention in his field?
  Some in the minority object to Mr. Becker simply because he is a 
union lawyer--a counsel to both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees 
International Union. But that hardly disqualifies him. The Senate has 
consistently confirmed Board members with backgrounds in unions as well 
as in management. And Mr. Becker has repeatedly said that he will 
approach all the matters before the Board impartially and with open 
mind--just what we need and expect at an agency as independent as the 
NLRB.
  Here is what he said at his confirmation hearing:

       As an attorney, I have sat across the table from management 
     and also on the same side of the table, in both postures 
     gaining an understanding of employers' concerns and often 
     finding common ground between labor and management. It is 
     this range of experience that, should I be confirmed, I will 
     draw on in collaborating with my fellow Board Members to 
     fairly, efficiently and faithfully apply the law.

  Mr. Becker is widely respected by the legal community and management 
lawyers alike. Last month, 66 labor law professors from the Nation's 
top law schools wrote Senate leaders urging his immediate confirmation 
and attesting to his ``integrity, fairness, and dedication to advancing 
Congress' purposes in adopting federal labor law and to the role of the 
NLRB.''
  And yet it has taken almost 8 months for us to get to this point--
just to reach the point of finally getting to vote on his nomination. 
It is an 8-month journey that underscores just how committed the 
minority has been to prevent President Obama from staffing the 
executive branch of government or moving any agenda forward.
  Mr. Becker was nominated by the President in July 2009, and in 
October the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee 
approved his nomination--and it did so with bipartisan support from 
Senator Enzi and Senator Murkowski.
  But after that, Senator McCain placed a ``hold'' on his nomination, 
forcing the President to resubmit it last month. And then, at the 
insistence of the Senate minority, the HELP Committee was forced to 
hold a hearing the nomination, something the Committee hasn't had to do 
for an NLRB nominee since 1980.
  Moreover, Mr. Becker dutifully answered hundreds of written questions 
from Republicans--more questions than Supreme Court Justice Sonia 
Sotomayor had to answer during her confirmation process. And when the 
Committee voted a second time on Mr. Becker, not one Republican voted 
for him, not even those who had supported him the first time around.
  Critics have attacked Mr. Becker for his work on behalf of unions in 
the past. But most labor lawyers devote their careers either to 
representing unions and workers or to representing management. This 
avoids conflicts of interest. We have historically confirmed NLRB 
nominees from both backgrounds, and indeed the package of nominations 
before the Senate includes Brian Hayes, who practiced for many years as 
a management-side labor lawyer and has served as Republican HELP 
Committee labor counsel.
  The fact of the matter is that the minority want to turn this 
nomination into a litmus test on legislation we have yet to consider--
legislation on reforming how workers exercise their right to organize. 
The criticism repeated most often of Mr. Becker is that he would use 
his position on the NLRB to institute a binding system for organizing 
that would allow workers to select a union by signing cards. That 
system is backed by organized labor.

[[Page S521]]

  But here is what is important. Making a card check system binding on 
employers is something Craig Becker has said he would not and could not 
do. He is being filibustered over something he has specifically pledged 
not to do--and which is not the question before us today. It is no 
surprise that in his role as a labor lawyer, Mr. Becker has been a 
strong supporter of a legislative proposal to make it possible for 
workers to organize by signing cards in favor of a union. But he has 
clearly stated--and accurately stated--that only Congress can take such 
action. This confirmation is not, nor should it be about the Employee 
Free Choice Act legislation that we have yet to debate and consider. 
This is about ensuring that the NLRB can operate. And it is about 
whether or not a qualified aspiring public servant will be allowed to 
serve. As you know, the NLRB plays a critical role in protecting 
workers' rights. And yet, in the last 2 years, the NLRB has operated 
with only two of its five members. And the courts are split on whether 
a two-member NLRB can validly issue decisions. The Supreme Court is set 
to decide the matter later this year.
  Meanwhile, though, the NLRB struggles along with a majority of its 
seats vacant--and I am sorry to be forced to acknowledge that may be 
exactly what our Republican colleagues want. Well over a year after 
President Obama's inauguration, nominees to key positions in the 
executive branch are still awaiting confirmation because they have been 
placed on ``hold'' by the minority. In most cases, the objections to 
the nominees have nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications and 
everything to do with parochial interests. Whether holding a nominee to 
try to steer a Federal contract to a State or to express opposition to 
Canadian tobacco legislation, the minority is turning the Senate's 
power to advise and consent into the power to bully and extort and, 
above all, to prevent Barack Obama from having the people in place 
necessary to govern effectively. And those who lose in this game are 
not Democrats, it is the American people. They need the executive 
branch to execute the laws we have passed and we should let it.
  I think in the elections of 2006, 2008, and yes in the special 
election in Massachusetts in 2010, we have witnessed a rejection of the 
polarized and too often murky ways of doing business in Washington. But 
I regret to say, there is no better example of that kind of Washington 
backroom business than the way the minority has behaved on the 
nomination of Craig Becker.
  And so, I respectfully ask my Republican colleagues to put aside the 
gamesmanship on this nomination and take a hard look at Craig Becker, 
his testimony, his record and his commitment to the rights of working 
men and women. He doesn't have to be your first choice to head the 
NLRB. But you have to acknowledge that the President has the right to 
make his choice. Advise and consent is not a blank check to delay and 
obstruct. And voting along party lines, especially on this nomination, 
with no regard for the broader national interest is not what any of us 
were sent here to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
February 4 order with respect to the Executive Calendar be further 
modified to provide that the debate time be extended until 4 p.m., and 
that at 4 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the nomination of Joseph 
Greenaway, with the time until then divided as previously ordered, and 
that the remaining provisions of the February 4 order, as modified, 
still be in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, with only half an hour to go, we are 
here today to consider two things, but I think most important--and what 
is on everyone's mind now--is the nomination of Harold Craig Becker to 
serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board.
  I first wish to thank my colleague from Ohio for a very poignant and 
pointed and very clear kind of laying out of what this is really all 
about. So I thank Senator Brown for that.
  While I am always proud to discuss the accomplishments of a highly 
qualified nominee such as Mr. Becker, it is unfortunate we got to this 
point. Last year, we had an agreement with the Republicans on the HELP 
Committee that we would move Mr. Becker's nomination as a package, 
along with the other two pending nominees for the Board, one of whom is 
a Republican. Well, what happened is, at the end of the year, under the 
rules of the Senate, one Senator on the Republican side objected to 
having Mr. Becker continue on the calendar. It is clearly their right, 
but they did that, and so it went back to the White House and then came 
back to us.
  I was asked, as the chairman of the committee, to have a hearing on 
Mr. Becker. We haven't had a hearing on a nominee for the NLRB since 
1985. We had a hearing for someone to be chairman, but just for a 
member, not since 1985. Since that time, we have always worked together 
in a bipartisan fashion to have a package. When there is a Republican 
President, it is usually two Republicans and one Democrat. When there 
is a Democratic President, it is usually two Democrats and one 
Republican. But we have never had any hearings on this.
  I didn't have to have a hearing on Mr. Becker, but I decided to bend 
over backward and say: Look, OK, fine, let's have a hearing on Mr. 
Becker. I could have had a hearing with all three of them. I could have 
had the Republican up there too. Maybe we could have given him 400 
questions. But I don't like to play those games.
  So we had a hearing, and Mr. Becker came. I thought he presented 
himself extremely well, answered all the questions, and then we moved 
ahead on the nomination. But we had that package before, and that 
package was supported on a bipartisan basis. But once Mr. Becker got 
separated from the package by the actions of one Republican Senator, as 
I just mentioned, well, now it is OK to move two of them but not Mr. 
Becker. Well, I find that disconcerting. I find it very disconcerting. 
That agreement has now been abandoned. It is too bad because there are 
many other important ways we could be using our time in the Senate 
rather than on just a routine nomination.
  That is not to say the work of the NLRB is not important. It is 
critical, especially in these troubled and turbulent times. The NLRB is 
a small agency, but its mission is large. Listen to the words of the 
National Labor Relations Act that sets up the NLRB:

       The NLRB's mission is to encourage the practice and 
     procedure of collective bargaining and to protect the 
     exercise by workers of full freedom of association.

  Let me say that again:

     . . . to encourage the practice and procedure of collective 
     bargaining.

  That doesn't say the NLRB is just supposed to sit back and say: Well, 
we don't care whether someone is unionized or not unionized; we don't 
care whether someone is able to use collective bargaining. That is not 
the law of the land. Read the law. They are to encourage the practice 
and procedure of collective bargaining. So when I hear people get up 
and say that someone on the Board is going to be pro-union or pro-
collective bargaining, I say: Well, that is kind of in keeping with the 
very words that establish the National Labor Relations Board.
  In today's challenging economy, when workers are vulnerable, worrying 
about their future, it is critically important to have strong 
leadership on the Board that understands its mandate. I believe very 
strongly in the mission of the NLRB, and I have a deep respect and 
admiration for the dedicated people who work there. But I have made no 
secret of the fact that I am troubled by some aspects of the Board's 
recent performance.
  In recent years, the Board is not doing all it can to inform workers 
of their rights or to assess appropriate penalties for repeat violators 
of our labor laws. And that is not to mention the excessive delays at 
the Board, because we know justice delayed is justice denied in many 
cases.
  There is no real penalty for violating workers' rights. In the last 4 
years, the median time to process an unfair labor practice charge at 
the Board has averaged about 782 days. That is more than 2 years. The 
median time between the petition for an election and the time when the 
Board certifies the results of a disputed election is 308 days. What 
does this mean? It means that if someone is exercising his or her legal 
right

[[Page S522]]

to help organize a union and the employer fires that person, which is a 
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and that employee then 
files a case with the NLRB, it takes over 2 years to get to it. Well, 
that person is fired. What does that person do? Suppose that person--he 
or she--is married; they have a couple of kids and they need that 
income, so they have to get another job. They have to get another job. 
Now 2 years have gone by, and the National Labor Relations Board finds 
in favor of the employee who was wrongly fired. What does the employer 
have to do? The employer has to pay back wages minus any other wages 
that employee made during that intervening time. Well, if that employee 
was lucky enough to get a job that paid as well, that means the 
employer pays nothing--nothing. So is it any wonder employers feel they 
can just fire people willy-nilly for exercising their right to form a 
union, when there is really no penalty?
  That is what is happening today. It is a serious problem, and we have 
to put this agency back on track. They have to close down that amount 
of time. I am confident Craig Becker can be an important part of that 
effort. He is one of the preeminent labor law thinkers in the United 
States and, I might add, a proud son of the State of Iowa, born and 
raised in Iowa. His father was a professor at the university. He has 
taught labor law at some of our finest law schools, including 
Georgetown, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, and he has authored 
numerous articles on labor and employment issues. He is also a skilled 
litigator who has advocated for workers' interests in the highest 
courts of this land. He has argued cases in virtually every court of 
appeals and before the U.S. Supreme Court. I have met with him and 
spoken with him at length, and I know he will be an invaluable addition 
to the NLRB. He is an expert on the law, he knows the Board, and he 
brings a tremendous depth of experience to this important position.
  His impressive accomplishments have earned the respect of his 
colleagues in the bar and his colleagues in the academy. This committee 
has received several letters of recommendation from management-side 
attorneys--people who have litigated against Mr. Becker as 
adversaries--praising his virtues and his potential as a Board member. 
This chart reflects the comments of one such attorney:

       Over the years, I have worked with Mr. Becker on a number 
     of complex issues and cases. Although we were both aggressive 
     advocates for our respective clients and their positions, we 
     were always able to have an open dialogue. I believe that Mr. 
     Becker always took the time to understand the issues from the 
     employer's side, and was willing to work creatively toward 
     amicable resolutions of the issues. Based on my many 
     experiences, I believe that Mr. Becker's integrity is 
     exceptional, as is his knowledge of labor law, and he will be 
     fair, hard-working, and an asset to the NLRB Board.

  That is a quote from an attorney who represents management.
  Another one said:

       I have read of the concerns expressed by some that Mr. 
     Becker would prove ``doctrinaire'' and/or biased toward 
     unions in his application of the NLRA. It is my honest 
     opinion, based on firsthand experience dealing with him, that 
     these concerns are completely unfounded. On the contrary, I 
     am convinced that Mr. Becker would demonstrate fairness, 
     integrity, sound judgment, and an abiding respect for all the 
     Congressionally mandated rights of employers, unions, and 
     employees alike. I respectfully urge you to support his 
     confirmation.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record both of the letters from which I have just quoted, along with 
other letters and an endorsement from more than 60 law professors.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Laner Muchin Dombrow Becker Levin and Tominberg, Ltd.,
                                                 January 29, 2010.
     Re Confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the NLRB.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: As a lawyer who 
     has represented employers in the private and public sectors 
     for over (30) years, I am writing to describe my experiences 
     with Craig Becker.
       Over the years, I have worked with Mr. Becker on a number 
     of complex issues and cases that had significant implications 
     for his union clients, and my employer clients. Although we 
     were both aggressive advocates for our respective clients and 
     their positions, we were always able to have an open 
     dialogue. I believe that Mr. Becker always took the time to 
     understand the issues from the employer's side, and was 
     willing to work creatively toward amicable resolutions of the 
     issues. In other words, he is a problem-solver, a 
     characteristic that is highly-valued in a lawyer.
       Based on my many experiences, I believe that Mr. Becker's 
     integrity is exceptional, as is his knowledge of labor law, 
     and he will be fair, hard-working, and an asset to the 
     National Labor Relations Board.
           Very truly yours,
     Joseph M. Gagliardo.
                                  ____

                                               Sonnenschein Nath &


                                                Rosenthal LLP,

                                                 January 28, 2010.
     Re Confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the NLRB.

     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: As an attorney who, for more than 
     47 years, has practiced exclusively in the area of Labor and 
     Employment Law representing management, I am writing to urge 
     the confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the National 
     Labor Relations Board.
       I have had the opportunity to work together with and in 
     opposition to Mr. Becker on a number of matters involving a 
     significant number of employers and employees, including 
     litigation and collective bargaining negotiations. 
     Throughout, he has consistently demonstrated an impressive 
     grasp and appreciation of and deeply felt commitment and 
     dedication to the principles enunciated by Congress and 
     embodied in the National Labor Relations Act.
       I have read of the concerns expressed by some that Mr. 
     Becker would prove ``doctrinaire'' and/or biased toward 
     unions in his application of the NLRA. It is my honest 
     opinion, based upon first-hand experience dealing with him, 
     that these concerns are completely unfounded. On the 
     contrary, I am convinced that Mr. Becker would demonstrate 
     fairness, integrity, sound judgment and an abiding respect 
     for all of the Congressionally mandated rights of employers, 
     unions, and employees alike. I respectfully urge you to 
     support his confirmation.
           Sincerely,
     Richard L. Marcus.
                                  ____

                                              New York University,


                                 School of Law Faculty of Law,

                                   New York, NY, January 19, 2010.
     Re Confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the NLRB

     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mike Enzi,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
         Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi: I have 
     practiced and taught labor and employment law for over 30 
     years, hold the Dwight D. Opperman professorship at New York 
     University School of Law, direct NYU's Center for Labor and 
     Employment Law, and serve as Chief Reporter for the American 
     Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of Employment Law.
       I am writing in support of the confirmation of Craig Becker 
     to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or 
     Board), and I do on the following basis.
       The President, in my view, should enjoy a broad latitude in 
     selecting members of his administration, including members of 
     independent agencies like the NLRB. Congress has the 
     responsibility to make sure that the President's selections 
     do not have disqualifying problems of competence or 
     character; if the President's nominees do pass that test and 
     fall within a broad zone of acceptability, Congress has a 
     reciprocal duty to confirm the President's choices. That is 
     particularly true with respect to the NLRB. There is a good 
     deal of controversy over whether the NLRB still functions as 
     an effective agency in enforcing statutory rights and 
     obligations. Much of this controversy has played a role in 
     the debates over the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, still 
     under consideration in Congress. It is therefore in the 
     interest of all--employees, employers, unions, judges and 
     lawyers--that the Board operate with a full complement 
     reflecting the various Presidential choices over time as to 
     the best people for the job.
       It is clear that Mr. Becker passes the tests of competence 
     and character and falls within the broad zone of 
     acceptability. Although I have sometimes disagreed with his 
     legal positions and his writings, I have consistently found 
     his work to be the product of a highly intelligent, 
     thoughtful person who knows and understands the labor law 
     materials and is open to reasoned discussion. Based on my 
     interactions with him, I am confident that he will be a most 
     able member of this distinguished agency.

[[Page S523]]

       I urge you to confirm Mr. Becker as a member of the Board. 
     If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, 
     please advise.
           Sincerely,
     Samuel Estreicher.
                                  ____

                                         University of California,


                                                School of Law,

                                     Irvine, CA, January 21, 2010.
     Re Confirmation of Craig Becker as a Member of the NLRB.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: As teachers and 
     scholars of labor law, we write to express our strong support 
     for the confirmation of Craig Becker to be a Member of the 
     National Labor Relations Board. We believe firmly that, if 
     confirmed, Mr. Becker will prove to be one of the most 
     respected Board Members in the history of the NLRB.
       Mr. Becker possesses unparalleled qualifications to be a 
     Member of the Board. He has practiced labor law for many 
     years and also taught and written extensively about labor law 
     and related subjects. Mr. Becker has had an enormous range of 
     practical experience in the field of labor law, having 
     represented a broad range of unions in the public and the 
     private sector as well as many individual workers, both union 
     members and nonmembers. He has argued cases in virtually 
     every United States Court of Appeals and in the United States 
     Supreme Court, many of them among the most important labor 
     law cases of the last several decades. He has also taught 
     labor law at several of our nation's finest law schools, 
     including the University of Chicago, Georgetown and UCLA. His 
     scholarship reflects a great respect for and deep knowledge 
     of the law and weighs and considers all arguments in a fair 
     and honest manner. His articles are widely cited, regularly 
     used in law school classes, and admired by labor law scholars 
     across the political spectrum.
       Despite Mr. Becker's obvious qualifications to be a Member 
     of the NLRB, his opponents have made a series of misleading 
     and inaccurate statements about him and, in particular, about 
     his published work. We urge anyone considering Mr. Becker's 
     nomination not to rely on sound bites, fragments taken out of 
     context, and misquotations, but to actually read Mr. Becker's 
     scholarly writing.
       Those of us who know Mr. Becker personally as well as those 
     of us who have read his work and are familiar with his 
     professional reputation can attest to his integrity, 
     fairness, and dedication to advancing Congress' purposes in 
     adopting federal labor law and to the role of the NLRB. 
     Without qualification we urge prompt confirmation of Mr. 
     Becker to be a member of the NLRB.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Catherine Fisk.
       Institutional affiliations listed for purposes of 
     identification only.

       I am authorized to state that the following have read this 
     letter and join it.

       James Brudney, Ohio State University, Moritz College of 
     Law; Cynthia Estlund, New York University School of Law; 
     Benjamin, Sachs Harvard Law School; David Abraham, University 
     of Miami School of Law; James Atleson, State University of 
     New York at Buffalo School of Law; Mark Barenberg, Columbia 
     University Law School; Esta Bigler, Cornell University ILR 
     School; Susan Bisom-Rapp, Thomas Jefferson Law School; 
     Christopher Cameron, Southwestern University Law School; 
     Susan Carle, American University, Washington College of Law; 
     Kenneth Casebeer, University of Miami Law School; Carin 
     Clauss, University of Wisconsin Law School; Lance Compa, 
     Cornell University ILR School; Laura Cooper, University of 
     Minnesota Law School; Roberto Corrada, Denver University 
     School of Law; Marion Crain, Washington University School of 
     Law; Charles Craver, George Washington University Law School; 
     llen Dannin, Penn State University Dickinson College of Law; 
     Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, Indiana University, Bloomington--School 
     of Law; Henry Drummonds, Lewis & Clark--Northwestern School 
     of Law; Fred Feinstein, University of Maryland School of 
     Public Policy;
       Janice Fine, Rutgers University School of Management and 
     Labor Relations; Matthew Finkin, University of Illinois Law 
     School; Michael Fischl, University of Connecticut Law School; 
     William Forbath, University of Texas Law School; Ruben 
     Garcia, California Western School of Law; Julius Getman, 
     University of Texas Law School; Michael Goldberg, Widener 
     University School of Law; Alvin Goldman, University of 
     Kentucky Law School; Jennifer Gordon, Fordham University Law 
     School; Robert Gorman, University of Pennsylvania Law School; 
     William B. Gould, Stanford University Law School; Joseph 
     Grodin, University of California, Hastings College of Law; 
     Michael Hayes, University of Baltimore Law School; Dorothy 
     Hill, Albany Law School; William Hines, University of Iowa 
     School of Law; Ann Hodges, University of Richmond Law School; 
     Alan Hyde, Rutgers University Law School, Newark; Linda 
     Kerber, University of Iowa College of Law and Department of 
     History; Karl Klare, Northeastern University Law School; 
     Thomas Kohler, Boston College Law School; Howard Lesnick, 
     University of Pennsylvania Law School; Ariana Levinson, 
     University of Louisville, Louis Brandeis School of Law; Anne 
     Marie Lofaso, University of West Virginia Law School; Deborah 
     Malamud, New York University Law School; Martin Malin, 
     Chicago-Kent College of Law; Carlin Meyer, New York Law 
     School; Gary Minda, Brooklyn Law School; Charles Morris, 
     Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law; Maria 
     Ontiveros, University of San Francisco School of Law; James 
     Pope, Rutgers Law School--Newark; Cornelia Pillard, 
     Georgetown University Law Center; Theodore St. Antoine, 
     University of Michigan Law School; Paul Secunda, Marquette 
     University Law School; Lorraine Schmall, Northern Illinois 
     University Law School; Sidney Shapiro, Wake Forest University 
     Law School; Joseph Slater, University of Toledo College of 
     Law; Susan Stabile, St. Thomas University Law School; 
     Katherine V.W. Stone, UCLA Law School; Lea VanderVelde, 
     University of Iowa College of Law; Joan Vogel, Vermont Law 
     School; Marley Weiss, University of Maryland Law School; 
     Martha West, University of California, Davis--Law School; 
     Donna Young, Albany Law School; Noah Zatz, UCLA Law School.

  Mr. HARKIN. As these records show, those who know Mr. Becker the best 
all agree the President could not have made a better choice.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Becker's nomination has been delayed for months on 
end due to criticisms that are based on misinformation and misleading 
descriptions of his views. Mr. Becker has gone to great lengths to 
dispel those concerns and set the record straight. The first time his 
nomination was considered by this committee last year, he answered 282 
written questions from committee Republicans. He also said he would 
meet with any Senator who expressed an interest to personally explain 
his views. Only two asked to meet with him. This year, he testified 
before the HELP Committee, as I mentioned earlier, and answered 158 
additional questions. To put this in perspective, Justice Sotomayor, 
seeking a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, only had 220 
questions submitted to her.
  While this exhaustive vetting process should have alleviated any 
concerns about Mr. Becker's nomination, it appears there is still a lot 
of misinformation going around, so I would like to take this 
opportunity to set the record straight once and for all--not that I 
think what I am about to say or the letters and things I will point to 
will change any Republican minds. It seems as though their minds are 
made up en bloc that they are going to oppose Mr. Becker, just as they 
opposed Patricia Smith. But I think it is important for the general 
public to get the facts and to understand what this is all about.
  First and foremost, critics have suggested Mr. Becker would come to 
the Board with an agenda and that he would try to implement the 
Employee Free Choice Act by administrative fiat.
  As you are all aware, I am a supporter of the Employee Free Choice 
Act, as is President Obama. He campaigned on it. I hope to see it 
passed by Congress. I look forward to the debate. I hope it is signed 
into law by the President. But I have no illusions that those important 
changes can somehow be accomplished administratively, and neither does 
Craig Becker. He has clearly and consistently explained on numerous 
occasions that all three major reforms in the Employee Free Choice 
Act--the card check, binding arbitration for first contracts, and 
increased penalties for violations of the law--cannot be accomplished 
without a change in the statute. As we all know, statutes can only be 
amended by those of us elected to Congress, not by appointees to the 
NLRB. Mr. Becker was unequivocal in his responses on this point.
  Let's take a look at what Mr. Becker says and not what others say 
about him, not what others would like him to do. We heard a lot about 
that on Patricia Smith a week ago, on what others said, but let's take 
a look at what Mr. Becker has to say.
  On the issue of card check, he states:

       The reason the Employee Free Choice Act has been introduced 
     in Congress and the reason that question is before Congress 
     and not the Board is that the current Act clearly precludes 
     certification in the absence of a secret ballot election. 
     Section 9 of the Act, in two distinct ways, makes clear that 
     Congress has intended that a secret ballot election be 
     preconditioned for certification of the union.

  So, again, what Mr. Becker has said is that the Board can't change 
that.
  On binding arbitration, he said:

       The second section [of EFCA] establishes procedures for 
     mediation and, if necessary,

[[Page S524]]

     binding arbitration in circumstances where a union or 
     employer engaged in bargaining for a first contract are 
     unable to reach agreement. Action by Congress would also be 
     required to implement these procedures.

  So on the second part of the Employee Free Choice Act, Mr. Becker 
says that only Congress can change it.
  Finally, in discussing the new penalties about which I spoke a little 
bit ago, Mr. Becker says:

       The third and final section of EFCA would establish civil 
     penalties and a treble backpay remedy for certain unfair 
     labor practices. I do not believe the Board has authority to 
     award double or triple backpay as a remedy for a violation of 
     Section 8(a)(3) without congressional action nor do I believe 
     that section 10 currently vests in the Board the authority to 
     impose the penalties discussed above.

  Well, I don't think he could have been any clearer in his views on 
this issue.
  Earlier, we had some discussion by the Senator from Georgia and also 
my colleague from Wyoming about the National Mediation Board and how 
two people got on the Mediation Board and immediately overturned 75 
years of law.
  What you never heard was that the National Mediation Board acted 
within their rights. No one is saying they did something to violate a 
law. They acted within the purview of the authority they have. That is 
not the same case with the NLRB. They do not have this authority. 
Second, I think it is important, since people listened to this about 
the National Mediation Board, to clear up one thing. Here is what they 
did. For 75 years they have said basically in these types of elections, 
if someone doesn't vote it is considered a ``no'' vote. Imagine that. 
If you don't vote it is a ``no'' vote. Now they say that you only have 
to have 51 percent of those voting to have an affirmative vote. Who is 
going to dispute that? That is what we do in bond elections in this 
country, that is what we do in referendums, school board elections, and 
even elections for the Senate.
  Think about this. What if you said if you don't vote that is a ``no'' 
vote. Nowhere else in this country do we say that. If you don't vote, 
it should not be counted yes and it should not be counted no. The 
National Mediation Board simply applied the general rule of elections 
we follow in this country.
  Mr. Becker has also received criticism based on his academic 
writings. Opponents of his nomination have suggested that he supports 
radical changes in the law that would require workers to join unions 
against their will, or take away the free speech rights of employers. 
These wild assertions have no basis in reality, and Mr. Becker has gone 
to great pains to rebut these mischaracterizations of his academic 
views.
  For example on the issue of mandatory unionism, Mr. Becker has 
explained in response to a question from Senator Burr that: ``The Act 
vests in employees the right to self-organization and to form, join, or 
assist labor organizations and the right to refrain from doing any and 
all of such activities with the limited exception provided in section 
8(a)(3) as modified by section 14(b). If I am confirmed, I will 
faithfully apply those provisions of the law.'' And again, in response 
to a question from Senator Roberts, he stated without reservation that: 
``I believe workers should have a choice of whether or not to join a 
union.''
  Similarly, in discussing allegations that he supports eliminating 
employer free speech rights, Mr. Becker has responded: ``It's clear 
that employers have a legitimate interest, and have a right which is 
indisputable to express their views on the question of whether their 
employees should unionize. So nothing in . . . my writing should be 
construed to suggest that in any way I think that employers don't have 
a right to clearly express their views on the question of 
unionization.'' That was in response to a question by Senator Isakson.
  I fail to see why these direct and unequivocal responses do not 
alleviate my colleagues' concerns. I don't know what more his critics 
are looking for.
  Evidently they are more interested in looking at what other people 
have to say about him than what Mr. Becker says himself.
  Finally, some of my colleagues seem to have problems----
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have several Senators who wish to 
speak on the first vote that is coming up this afternoon, the Greenaway 
nomination. Is the Senator going to give us any time? Because our time 
is also being used by him right now. I was wondering if at some point 
we might have time to speak on the Greenaway nomination.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, I thought we had 45 minutes on our 
side for the nomination of Mr. Becker.
  Mr. LEAHY. No.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am using that time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my understanding is that time was to be 
used for both Becker and Greenaway. I was wondering, since Greenaway is 
the first vote we are going to come to, whether we will have time on 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is incurred on both matters.
  Mr. HARKIN. I believed, under the information that I had, 45 minutes 
out of 90 minutes that was evenly split on Mr. Becker. I have been 
waiting for a long time to speak on Mr. Becker. I see no reason why we 
couldn't ask for consent to move the vote back a little bit if people 
want to. I wouldn't object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if the Senator would yield further, the 
reason I was here is I was told the time, 45 minutes, was to be used 
for both nominations. If the Senator from Iowa wishes to use all the 
time for his nomination, I also point out that Judge Greenaway has been 
waiting since last June for his vote. But certainly the Senator has the 
floor. I understand he has the floor and I understand he can take all 
the time and not leave any time to the other Senators who are supposed 
to receive time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats retain 7 minutes 40 seconds in 
debate.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I do not want to keep anyone from 
speaking. I was under a misimpression. I did not know I did not have my 
45 minutes. I apologize. This was not part of my information. I will 
try to wrap up as rapidly as I can. But I think this is important.
  Obviously, Mr. Greenaway seems to have a lot of support. There is no 
contention about him but there certainly is about Mr. Becker and I want 
to set the record straight about Mr. Becker.
  My colleagues seem to have a problem with Mr. Becker simply because 
he is a union lawyer and a darned good one. But that should not be a 
cause for concern. Most labor lawyers devote their time either to labor 
or representing management. Indeed, since the Board's inception, 23 
management attorneys or consultants have served on the Board compared 
to only 3 who came from a background of representing unions--23 to 3. 
Now we have someone come from a background of representing unions and 
now they do not want him on the Board.
  Again, these people all came from different backgrounds. I am sure 
Mr. Becker will approach this with an open mind and impartiality. No 
one has suggested there is an ethical problem with Mr. Becker's 
previous employment. He has clearly and unequivocally stated that he 
will recuse himself from matters that may come before the Board 
concerning his former employers, the Service Employees International 
Union and the AFL-CIO, for a period of 2 years. He answered 440 written 
questions. After months of delay, it is time to move on, not only 
because Mr. Becker is so abundantly qualified but also because the NLRB 
has important work to do. We owe it to hard-working Americans to act 
quickly on these nominations. I hope all my colleagues will join me in 
supporting Mr. Becker's nomination so we can complete this process and 
let him start his important work.
  I yield the floor.
  I apologize to my good friend from Vermont but as he can tell, I 
needed to get the record straight on Mr. Becker.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, no apology is necessary. The only reason 
I raised that is because I heard what the order was earlier this 
afternoon.
  Today the Senate will finally consider the nomination of Judge Joseph 
Greenaway to fill the vacancy created by Justice Alito on the U.S. 
Court of

[[Page S525]]

Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Greenaway is an outstanding jurist 
who has served for nearly 14 years on the Federal district court in New 
Jersey. President Obama nominated him last June. That nomination was 
reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee more than 4 months ago, 
without a single dissenting vote. He should have been confirmed long 
ago. I have been speaking about this nomination for some time to call 
attention to the unexplained and unnecessary delay in its 
consideration. The Senators from New Jersey have both come to the 
Senate floor on repeated occasions calling for consideration. Judge 
Greenaway will finally be confirmed today.
  I continue to be deeply disappointed by the delays and obstruction 
caused by Senate Republicans. Regrettably, Judge Greenaway's long-
stalled nomination is another example of these tactics. As I previously 
explained in a statement on January 25, the Senate majority leader came 
before the Senate on January 22 to highlight the delay in the 
consideration of Judge Greenaway. Senate Republicans would not agree to 
consider his nomination that week, or the next week, or the next. It 
took the persistence of the majority leader and the vocal support of 
the Senators from New Jersey, who spoke on January 25 and, again on 
February 2, about the Republican stalling, to pry this nomination 
loose. That is wrong. It should not take such effort to get Senate 
Republicans to vote on a nomination, especially one that most, if not 
all, of them are likely to support. We should be able in regular order 
to consider noncontroversial nominations like that of Judge Greenaway 
without months of delay.
  Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees 
to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total 
was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in the first year of a 
Presidency in more than 50 years--since 1953 when President Eisenhower 
only made nine nominations all year, all of which were confirmed. The 
number of confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican 
majority allowed to be confirmed in the 1996 session.
  Last week, at the Democratic Policy Committee's issues retreat, I 
asked President Obama if he will continue to work hard to send names to 
the Senate as quickly as possible, and to commit to work with us, both 
Republicans and Democrats, to get these nominees confirmed. So far 
since taking office the President has reached across the aisle working 
with Republicans and Democrats to identify well-qualified nominations. 
Yet even these nominations are delayed or obstructed. The President 
responded by stating:
  Well, this is going to be a priority. Look, it is not just judges, 
unfortunately, Pat, it is also all our Federal appointees. We have got 
a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified; 
nobody has a specific objection to them, but end up having a hold on 
them because of some completely unrelated piece of business.
  On the judges front, we had a judge for the--coming out of Indiana, 
Judge Hamilton, who everybody said was outstanding--Evan Bayh, 
Democrat; Dick Lugar, Republican; all recommended. How long did it take 
us? Six months, 6, 7 months for somebody who was supported by the 
Democratic and Republican senator from that State. And you can multiply 
that across the board. So we have to start highlighting the fact that 
this is not how we should be doing business.
  I could not agree more with President Obama. This should not be the 
way the Senate behave. Last week, the Senate had to vote to invoke 
cloture and end the 15th filibuster of President Obama's nominations to 
fill important posts in the executive branch and the judiciary. That 
number does not include the many other nominees who have been prevented 
up-or-down votes in the Senate by the silent filibuster of Republicans 
refusing to agree to time agreements to consider even noncontroversial 
nominees. Every single Republican Senator who voted last Monday voted 
against cloture and to keep filibustering a well-qualified nominee. 
Every single Republican voted to obstruct the Senate from doing the 
business of the American people.
  Unfortunately, we have seen the repeated abuse of filibusters, and 
delay and obstruction have become the norm for Senate Republicans. We 
have seen unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue 
after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected 
70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the 
will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 
Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. Those who just 
a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed 
to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are 
unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ any delaying 
tactic they can.
  The Republican practice of making supermajorities the new standard to 
proceed to consider many noncontroversial and well-qualified 
nominations for important posts in the executive branch, and to fill 
vacancies on the Federal courts, is having a debilitating effect on our 
government's ability to serve the American people. Hard-working 
Americans who seek justice in our overburdened Federal courts are the 
ones who will pay the price for Republicans' obstruction and delay. 
They deserve better.
  Even after years of Republican pocket filibusters that blocked more 
than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees from even having a 
hearing and led to skyrocketing judicial vacancies, Democrats did not 
practice this kind of obstruction and delay in considering President 
Bush's nominations. We worked hard to reverse the Republican 
obstructionism. In the second half of 2001, the Democratic majority in 
the Senate proceeded to confirm 28 judges.
  By February 9, 2002, the comparable date in President Bush's first 
term, the Senate had confirmed 32 circuit and district court 
nominations. Judge Greenaway will be only the 15th Federal circuit or 
district judge allowed to be confirmed. That is less than half of where 
we were in 2002.
  During just the second year of President Bush's first term, the 
Democratic Senate majority confirmed 72 judicial nominations and helped 
reduce the vacancies left by Republican obstructionism from over 110 to 
59 by the end of 2002. Overall, in the 17 months that I chaired the 
Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the 
Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees.
  We continued to be fair and worked to reduce vacancies even during 
President Bush's last year in office. With Senate Democrats again in 
the majority, we reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even 
though it was a Presidential election year. When President Bush left 
office, we had reduced vacancies in 9 of the 13 Federal circuits.
  As matters stand today, judicial vacancies have spiked again, as they 
did due to Republican obstruction in the 1990s. These vacancies are 
again being left unfilled. We started 2010 with the highest number of 
vacancies on article III courts since 1994, when the vacancies created 
by the last comprehensive judgeship bill were still being filled. While 
it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a Federal judgeship bill, 
judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, with 102 current 
vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had proceeded on the 
judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference to address the 
growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 1984 and 1990, in 
order to provide the resources the courts need, current vacancies would 
stand over 160 today and would be headed toward 180. That is the true 
measure of how far behind we have fallen.
  Republican Senators insisted on stalling confirmation of the 
nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was confirmed with more than 90 
votes. They insisted on stalling the nomination of Judge Andre Davis, 
who was confirmed with more than 70 votes. They unsuccessfully 
filibustered the nomination of Judge David Hamilton last November, 
having delayed its consideration for months. They stalled Judge Beverly 
Martin's nomination for at least 2 months because they would not agree 
to consider it before January 20. They have stalled for 3 additional 
weeks on Judge Greenaway's nomination. We have wasted weeks and months 
having to seek time agreements in order to consider nominations that 
were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and who

[[Page S526]]

are then confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate once they are finally 
allowed to be considered.
  Judge Greenaway's nomination is yet another example. He is a good 
judge who had years of experience as a Federal prosecutor. He received 
the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association's 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Senator Sessions praised 
him at his confirmation hearing. He should have been confirmed last 
year, and he would have but for Republican objection.
  I, again, urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy and 
allow prompt consideration of the other judicial nominees awaiting 
Senate consideration: Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia, nominated to 
the Fourth Circuit; Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the 
Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the 
Third Circuit; Judge Denny Chin of New York, nominated to the Second 
Circuit; Judge William Conley, nominated to the Western District of 
Wisconsin; Justice Rogeriee Thompson of Rhode Island, nominated to the 
First Circuit; Judge James Wynn of North Carolina, nominated to the 
Fourth Circuit; Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina, nominated to the 
Fourth Circuit; Judge Edward Chen, nominated to the Northern District 
of California; and Justice Louis Butler, nominated to the Western 
District of Wisconsin.
  I commend the Senators from New Jersey for their hard work that has 
proven effective in connection with the nomination of Judge Greenaway 
and I congratulate Judge Greenaway and his family.
  I note the distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey and Senator 
Menendez from New Jersey wish to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I regret that the time has been 
shrunken as it has.
  I want an opportunity to register my full support to confirm an 
exceptionally well-qualified district jurist--Judge Joseph Greenaway--
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
  For more than 13 years, Judge Greenaway has served on U.S. District 
Court in Newark, NJ.
  On the entrance to that courthouse there is an inscription that 
reads:

       The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of 
     justice.

  I take pride in authorship of that quote because I firmly believe it 
reflects the values on which our Nation was founded--values that must 
endure throughout our government and legal system.
  While serving as a district judge in that building, Judge Greenaway 
has demonstrated his unyielding commitment to those values--the same 
values that will make him a success on the Third Circuit court of 
appeals.
  There can be no question that Judge Greenaway is eminently qualified 
for this position.
  Let's take a look at his credentials.
  From humble beginnings, Judge Joseph Greenaway became a graduate of 
Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Assistant U.S. Attorney for 
New Jersey, Chief of the Narcotics Division, U.S. District Court Judge 
for New Jersey, was confirmed by the Senate in 1996, presided over more 
than 4,000 cases, was rated unanimously well-qualified by the ABA and 
his nomination to the Third Circuit passed unanimously by Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  On top of his outstanding experience and intellect, there has never 
been a question about Judge Greenaway's ability, character, or 
commitment to the community. We are so fortunate that we have this 
outstanding individual.
  Throughout his career, despite his critical bench responsibilities, 
Judge Greenaway has always found time to help others aspiring to 
preserve our just society's obligations--by teaching criminal trial 
practice classes at Cardozo Law School and courses about the Supreme 
Court there and at Columbia University.
  And he has received numerous honors and awards recognizing his work. 
Among them: Thurgood Marshall College Fund Award of Excellence; Garden 
State Bar Association Distinguished Jurist Award; Chair Emeritus of the 
Columbia College Black Alumni Council.
  In fact, the only question surrounding Judge Greenaway's confirmation 
is this: What took so long to move him along to this very busy appeals 
court?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The time of the majority has 
expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Senator 
Menendez to be able to have 3 minutes also. I ask for an additional 6 
minutes for the Senators from New Jersey, which is considerably more 
than I had.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will just take a couple of more minutes.
  While I welcome a vote that will establish confidence in Judge 
Greenaway's ability to serve our country, today's vote comes 4 months 
after his nomination came to the floor of the U.S. Senate because of 
unnecessary and unreasonable delays.
  Not one of my Republican colleagues has voiced a single objection to 
Judge Greenaway along the way or a single reason for this delay.
  Judge Greenaway and the people of New Jersey are not alone in falling 
victim to this obstruction.
  Republican obstructionism last year led to the lowest number of 
judicial confirmations in more than 50 years.
  Justice has been delayed while those who refused to let this vote 
take place had another agenda--purely to score political points. It is 
shameful and the American people show discouragement.
  I hope today's vote signals a break in the profuse presence of 
obstructionism and will permit us to do our work for the American 
people in a more timely fashion.
  If they have objections based on character or ability, tell the 
American people that. Don't hide behind a cloak of procedure.
  The ABA found Judge Greenaway unanimously well-qualified and the 
Senate Judiciary Committee was unanimous in supporting this nomination.
  Today, I urge all my colleagues to once again unanimously support the 
confirmation of this brilliant legal scholar, Judge Joseph Greenaway, 
to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I first spoke in favor of the nomination 
of Judge Joseph A. Greenaway for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Third Circuit when I introduced him to the Judiciary Committee on 
September 10. This has been a long 5-month process, unnecessarily long 
for a good man and a noncontroversial nominee who was once unanimously 
approved by this Chamber under Republican leadership, and I might add 
received the full support, the unanimous support of the Judiciary 
Committee. Yet the minority has continued to delay his confirmation 
along with many others.
  If confirmed, he would be only the 15th of President Obama's circuit 
or district court nominees to be confirmed despite more than 100 
vacancies on the Federal bench.
  Having said that, today we are finally here to vote on the nomination 
of a man who fully embodies respect for justice and the rule of law 
that should have made this a simple, clear, easy choice.
  Let me briefly repeat his impeccable qualifications. At the age of 
38, Justice Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., was appointed by President 
Clinton to the Federal bench and has served for over a dozen years with 
distinction. He earned a bachelor of arts from Columbia University 
where he was honored, in 1997, with the Columbia University Medal of 
Excellence and with the John Jay Award in 2003.
  He earned his J.D. from Harvard Law where he was a member of the 
Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, and an Earl Warren 
Legal Scholar.
  He later clerked for the late Honorable Vincent L. Broderick, in the 
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, became an 
Assistant U.S. Attorney in Newark and later became chief of the 
narcotics bureau.
  In the private sector, he was an associate with the firm of Kramer, 
Levin, Nessen, Kamin, and Frankel--and served at Johnson and Johnson as 
in-house counsel.
  He is chair emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni Council and 
has been an adjunct professor at Rutgers Law School.

[[Page S527]]

  Currently, he is an adjunct professor at both the Cardozo School of 
Law and Columbia College where he teaches a seminar on the Supreme 
Court. But however impressive his experience and qualifications, they 
do not do justice to the man.
  He grew up in Harlem and the northeast Bronx not far from where 
Justice Sotomayor grew up, just across the river from Union City, NJ, 
where I grew up. He has a deep respect for the rule of law and a 
fundamental belief in fairness and the age-old notion of equal justice 
under law.
  He is accomplished and successful in his life and career, and proud 
of the justice system to which he has devoted his career. But he has 
also given much back to the community, something for which we in New 
Jersey will remain forever grateful.
  In 2006, before Judge Greenaway took the podium at the Benjamin 
Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva, Dean David Rudenstein introduced him 
as a man who touched many of his students' lives in meaningful ways. 
Those students, he said, had the privilege of witnessing his humanness 
and had been inspired by his example.
  That observation came as a surprise to no one who knows Judge 
Greenaway. He has always been an inspiration to students and graduates 
alike, taking many of them under his wing as law clerks or fellows. 
Mediocrity has never been Joe Greenaway's norm. He has always strived 
for excellence, and taught young lawyers to do the same.
  In conclusion, the confirmation of Judge Greenaway should have been 
an easy choice, but when all is said and done, when we put aside our 
political biases and look for those with the illusive qualities we like 
to call judicial temperament, those who best represent the fundamental 
concepts of justice and community, for as Edmund Burke once said: 
``Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society .  .  
.''
  Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. stands out. I am pleased that his 
nomination has finally come to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this eminently qualified, capable, nominee.
  I know I join with all of my colleagues and with the people of New 
Jersey in wishing Judge Greenaway good luck and Godspeed on this next 
journey in life.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., of New Jersey, 
to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the 
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), 
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Ex.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brownback
     Byrd
     Casey
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Landrieu
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Thune
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Craig Becker, of Illinois, to be a member of the National 
     Labor Relations Board.
         Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Mark Begich, Byron L. Dorgan, Dianne 
           Feinstein, John D. Rockefeller IV, Edward E. Kaufman, 
           Roland W. Burris, Daniel K. Akaka, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Sherrod Brown.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Craig Becker, of Illinois, to be a member of the National 
Labor Relations Board, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Louisiana 
(Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), and the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), 
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 33, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)

[[Page S528]]


     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brownback
     Byrd
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Landrieu
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Thune
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
33. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid upon the table, and the President will be notified of the 
Senate's action.

                          ____________________